Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 1, 2006 - Art Bell

02:39:19

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Roger Tolces - Wiretapping and Data Mining

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	From the Southeast Asian capital city of the Philippine Islands, Manila, I wish you good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you may be, under whatever condition you may be existing and listening to this program, the largest program of its type in the world.
	I bid you a good day.
	I'm Art Bell and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	It's going to be a very, very, very interesting Program tonight to update you a little bit typhoon millennial which came roaring through the capital city of the Philippines here Manila has now killed 76 people here 76 dead and that number is climbing the number of homeless can't be counted so many roofs blown off last night
	Last night, after the program, many hours after the program actually, we got power.
	Thank you, Moralco, the power company here.
	It was like Christmas when the power came on.
	And so we're actually back on full power right now.
	And we're one of the first areas that would regain power.
	I think a significant percentage of the capital city here is still without power.
	So many of you have relatives I know here in the Philippines.
	If you can't get hold of them, it's probably because obviously the lines are down.
	I'm getting a lot of emails from people with relatives here.
	You know, lines are down, that kind of thing, trees down, over lines, and all the rest of it.
	The odds are pretty good that your relatives are okay, but there are a lot of homeless.
	There are 76, as I mentioned, dead, and a larger number, of course, injured.
	So, that's the story from here in the Philippines, and kind of a current update.
	The webcam photograph up there this evening is from when I was down on the island of Mindanao.
	And you'll see me crossing a bridge there that everybody told me not to cross for rather obvious reasons, even though it's not a highly detailed picture.
	You get the idea.
	Below me was a very, I don't know, 100, 150 feet or something.
	And then there was rocks and a big, well, not a river, a stream, really.
	I thought, what the hell, you only live once.
	I try not to let things scare me.
	Speaking of that, listen.
	I would ask that you all take a look at the old Philippine letter.
	We've got that back up on the website tonight.
	The hate letter that some idiot wrote using my name is once again circulating around the web, going around the world, around and around and around and around as it has been doing for years.
	This is somewhat dangerous to myself and my wife because, of course, now I'm here in the Philippines, and for obvious reasons, with the death threats coming in and that kind of thing, it's very dangerous.
	And so I would ask that any of you who have relatives who are Filipinos pass on to them That this letter is, always has been, totally baloney, totally bogus.
	It was sent, according to the FBI, as far as they could trace it, from the University of California at San Diego.
	The library there, where of course at that time they didn't monitor who came and went.
	And that's where the trail ended.
	So we don't know who sent it.
	And it's just a very dangerous thing to be out there for me right now and to be recirculating.
	And I'm sure that whoever is circulating is doing so because they know I'm here.
	So there you have it.
	Let's take a look briefly around the world.
	The FBI is examining very closely Foley's email to teenagers.
	The FBI is examining former Representative Mark Foley's email exchanges with teenagers to try and determine if they violated any federal law.
	According to an agency spokesman Sunday, House Speaker Dennis Hastert asked Sunday for a federal investigation into the case, a lurid scandal that has put House Republicans in political peril.
	A new video has surfaced showing the 9-11 hijackers.
	A year, get this, a year before they did what they were going to do, smiling for the camera as it were, reportedly reading a will in footage taken more than 18 months before they carried out what of course was the worst terrorist attack on U.S.
	soil, Mohammed Atta, and another to look very different than in the tape they do, of course later when we saw them, very different at that time.
	Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, coming under renewed fire for his management of the Iraq War, said on Sunday he's not considering resigning, said the President has called him personally in recent days to express his continued support.
	Now, when you hear this kind of story, usually it ends up with somebody resigning.
	Now, not always, but usually.
	You know, the President absolutely supports me up until the moment that he doesn't.
	Eight killed in Hamas fighting in Gaza.
	A heavily armed Hamas militiamen effort to break up anti-government protests on Sunday sparked gun battles across the Gaza Strip.
	That killed eight people in the worst internal Palestinian violence since Hamas took power.
	A teen engineering prodigy who gained national attention back in 2002 when his family and he received An identification chip implant on live television was apparently killed in a motorcycle accident.
	It's already said Derek Jacobs, 18, lost control of his motorcycle early Saturday, crashed into a guardrail at a pole.
	The Palm Beach County office said he was, repeat, he was indeed wearing a helmet.
	It was late 1985 when Hugh Hefner walked into the grand opening of Playboy's Empire Club in Manhattan, the latest attempt by the magazine company to freshen its suave, sexy image.
	A quarter century of success in running such clubs was on the wane and a new gimmick was thought to be needed to attract a new audience of women, male Bunnies.
	Can you imagine that?
	Male bunnies.
	Also, we're looking at a story in which there is purportedly a hint of a connection between the American mob and terrorists.
	Now, in the old days, the American mob might have done whatever it is the American mob did in those days, but one thing they were was pretty much patriots, right?
	So it's hard to imagine, or is it hard to imagine, maybe days have changed and maybe even a mobster who would...
	I don't know.
	Run booze, or guns, or gambling, or whatever the mob did.
	Drugs, I suppose.
	They were pretty much patriots.
	I know it's hard to think of them that way.
	The American mob is patriots, but I think that they were at one time.
	Now, maybe the mob has changed.
	In a moment, we'll look at some of the rest of the day's news.
	Those of you wishing to get on the air with something of interest to the entire audience
	are more than welcome to begin dialing now if you know or have written down the numbers,
	and I know many of you have.
	We will be doing open lines and then in the next hour it's going to be a very very interesting program.
	Heaven knows it certainly is timely.
	Roger Tolses is going to be with us and he's going to be talking about Well, I guess, in essence, what we're giving up to fight the war on terror now, as many of you know, the President just got warrantless wiretaps approved and the monitoring of email between people in the U.S.
	and people elsewhere, as for example, where I am right here.
	Also, possibly, you never know about this because, you know, I get these messages on the computer, however, I do have a message from Jeff in Pasco, Washington, which says, ABC just reported that people all over the city of Yakima, Washington, are lighting up the 9-11 system there, reporting that they've seen something flash across the sky.
	One of the callers is a local police officer.
	Now, I just read you a message from Jeff in Pasco, Washington, so I have no way of confirming that.
	Until I get additional information, however... Somebody just sent me another funny one here.
	Hey Art, if you'll try and remember to mention that today is the 36th anniversary, my God has it been that long, since the Thrilla in Manila.
	And it's true, I want to I'm reading as I talk to you.
	I went to a concert with my wife here in Manila not long ago.
	Same place.
	As a matter of fact, I'm going to go see the Bee Gees in November.
	And they still had the big billboard up there for the Thrilla in Manila from back in the 70s.
	The hole over Antarctica's ozone layer is now bigger than last year and is now nearing the record 29 million square kilometer hole seen in 2000.
	This is all according to the World Meteorological Organization on Friday.
	Gere Brothan, the United Nations weather fellow, top ozone expert that is to say, said ozone depletion Had a late onset this year in the Southern Hemisphere.
	When low temperatures normally trigger chemical reactions that break down the atmospheric layer that filters dangerous solar radiation.
	The ozone depletion started quite late, but when it began it did so very rapidly.
	It, the hole, has now risen to a level that has passed last year's and is very close to, if not equal to, the ozone hole, the size of 2003 and also approaching the size of 2000.
	He said the Antarctic ozone hole was at its largest or second largest in 2003, biggest in 2000.
	While the use of ozone depleting CFCs has now waned, They say that large amounts of chlorine and bromine remain in the atmosphere and would keep causing large reductions in the Antarctic ozone layer for many, many years yet to come.
	Now, when do we think the ozone might repair itself?
	They're saying now that might be delayed until the year 2065.
	Speaking of holes, not in the ozone, but here in Mother Earth, this is a fascinating story, and I don't know if you're fascinated as I am by holes in the ground.
	I don't even know why I'm fascinated by holes.
	Yes, I do.
	It's because we don't have any idea what's deep down in the bowels of the Earth, do we?
	Today, the deepest hole ever created by humankind lies beneath the tower enclosing Kola's Drill.
	A number of boreholes split from the central branch, but the deepest is designated SG-3, a hole about nine inches wide Which, get this, snakes over 12.262 kilometers or 7.5 miles down into the Earth's crust.
	The drill spent 24 years chewing its way into the earth until its progress was finally halted in 1994,
	about 2.7 kilometers or 1.7 miles short of its 15,000 meter goal.
	To the surprise of the researchers, they did not find the expected transition,
	the moho from granite to basalt.
	At three to six kilometers beneath the surface, data had long shown that seismic waves travel significantly faster below that depth.
	And geologists had believed that this was all due to a basement of basalt.
	Instead, the difference was discovered to be a change in the rock, get this, brought on by intense heat pressure, or metamorphic rock.
	Even more surprising, this deep rock was found to be saturated in water which filled the cracks.
	Because free water should not be found at those depths, scientists theorize that the water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, which were squeezed out of the surrounding rocks due to the incredible pressure.
	The water was then prevented from rising to the surface because of the layer of impenetrable rocks above it.
	Another unexpected find was a menagerie of microscopic fossils as deep as 6.7 kilometers below the surface.
	Wow!
	24 distinct species of plankton microfossils were found, and they were discovered to have carbon and nitrogen coverings rather than the typical limestone or silica.
	Despite the harsh environment of heat and pressure, the microscopic remains were remarkably intact.
	Now, what that means, for example, I saw a recent, I think it was Nova or Discovery, anyway, they showed that if a large rock were to hit our planet, enveloping the planet ultimately in a fiery disaster that would kill even microbes, life would once again one day emerge from far underground.
	The Russian researchers were also surprised at how quickly the temperatures rose as a borehole deepened, which is the factor that ultimately halted the project's progress.
	Despite the scientists' efforts to combat the heat by refrigerating the drilling mud before they pumped it down, at 12 kilometers, the drill began to approach its maximum heat tolerance.
	At that level of heat and pressure, the rocks began to act more like a plastic than a solid. And the hole had a tendency to flow closed
	whenever the drill bit was pulled out for replacement.
	Forward progress became impossible without some sort of technological breakthrough
	and major renovations of the equipment on hand, so drilling stopped on the SG-3 branch.
	If the hole had reached the initial goal of 15,000 meters, temperatures would have reached a projected 572 degrees Fahrenheit.
	When drilling stopped in 1994, the hole was over 7 miles deep, 12,262 meters, making it by far the deepest hole ever drilled by mankind.
	The last of the cores to be plucked from the borehole were dated to be about 2.7 billion years old, or about 32 million times older than Abe Vigoda.
	Even at that depth, the Kola Project only penetrated into a fraction of the Earth's continental crust, which ranges from 20 to 80 kilometers thick.
	That's an amazing story, and I don't know why, again, I've always been fascinated by all sorts of holes.
	Mel's Hole, and various others.
	There are others, by the way.
	China has fired high-power lasers at U.S.
	spy satellites flying over its territory in what experts see as a test of Chinese ability to blind the spacecraft according to sources.
	It doesn't say what sources.
	It remains unclear how many times the ground-based laser was tested against U.S.
	spacecraft or whether it was successful.
	We would never say, I'm sure.
	But the combination of China's efforts and advances in Russian satellite jamming capabilities illustrate vulnerabilities to the U.S.
	space network and are at the core of U.S.
	Air Force plans to develop new space architectures and highly classified systems.
	Again, according to unnamed sources.
	According to experts, lasers, depending on their power level, could blind electro-optical satellites, like the giant Keyhole spacecraft, or even interfere with radar satellites, like the La Crosse.
	Blinding, one source said, is different than disabling, given the enormous power required to shoot a laser through the dense lower atmosphere and reach a fast-moving satellite in space.
	I don't see what the difference is.
	If you can blind it, you can stop it from doing what it ought to be doing, which is a reconnaissance of whatever you want to see on the ground.
	Now, I guess we're getting ready to make a black hole.
	The world's most powerful atomic particle accelerator is indeed going to begin functioning around six months from right now.
	It's capable of creating a black hole every second.
	That's a black hole every second.
	Since black holes suck up things like planets, is it dangerous?
	Scientists reassure us it's not, but then, of course, they've recently steered us wrong about other dangers as well.
	This comes, by the way, from Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country.
	Hadron Collider is now under construction in an underground circular tunnel that is 17 miles long in the world's largest physics lab, CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland.
	Black holes can't be seen, but astronomers can tell they do exist because of what they do.
	Things like, well, they have gravity so strong they suck in everything about them.
	Not even light can escape, which is how they got their name, black holes.
	They form in nature when a dead star collapses.
	In LiveScience.com, Charles Choi quotes physicist Greg Landsberg as saying that the danger is, quoting here, totally minuscule.
	End quote.
	Since the danger is not zero, Why take the risk?
	Landsberg says, if the Large Hadron Collider does create black holes, it will prove that extra dimensions of the universe exist.
	That's not trivial.
	The radiation that decaying black holes emit could yield clues that help finally unite all the current ideas about the forces of nature under the theory of everything.
	Which is something that quantum physicists have been searching for, for a very long, long time.
	So, if it was you, if you were in charge of this project at CERN, and you were on the verge of pushing a button that would create the very first black hole, with the albeit very tiny possibility that our entire planet would just blink out like that, It's a very small possibility, of course.
	Very small.
	But nevertheless, it is a possibility.
	Would you order the button to be pushed?
	Or would you... Well, what would you do?
	I've thought this one over.
	Now, it's not a trivial answer they're searching for.
	It's the theory of everything.
	Whether other universes actually exist.
	Whether we could get a glimpse into another universe.
	Whether we could even prove another universe exists.
	We might get that answer.
	We might get the The question, the equation that I think we've been told might not be any larger than your thumb that would reveal the theory of everything.
	There it is.
	A little red button sitting right in front of you.
	Well I suppose in this case it should be a little black button, right?
	It would create the first black hole.
	And your finger has the ability to press that button and make the first black hole.
	Now remember the planet could go Or, we could get great new knowledge.
	What would your finger do?
	From Manila, in the Philippines, I'm Art Bell.
	Ann in North Hollywood, California says, Hey Art, the FAA claims there was a meteor seen over Yakima, Washington.
	So maybe that was it, a meteor?
	Several people reported seeing a meteor streak through the sky Sunday night over Yakima.
	Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Mike O'Connor said he received about eight calls about the thing.
	I've always wondered about this and I wonder now about it too.
	It's not that I doubt what FAA spokesperson Mike O'Connor said, but I mean really, how does he know it was a meteor?
	Yeah, it came streaking across the sky, but unless you found the sizzling rock on the ground, you would have no way of knowing it was a meteor.
	Right?
	Could be anything.
	Could be a spaceship entering the atmosphere, streaking to Earth with its horrible contents of some sort.
	But no, they say it's a meteor.
	Well alright, as advertised, let us do some open lines.
	First time caller line, you are on the air.
	Hello?
	Hello?
	Hello, R?
	Yes?
	Yes, my name's Chris, I'm calling you from Reno.
	About that asteroid thing you were just saying, really quick, I actually saw one a long time ago, and it came in, I thought it was a shooting star, and it stopped.
	And then took off towards San Francisco Airport, At the same speed as the shooting star, I knew it wasn't real.
	Very, very suspicious.
	Yeah, nevertheless, your screener told me to be very quick with this, so I'll just set the scene really quick.
	When I was younger, and I remember this like it was yesterday, I had an outer body experience.
	And interestingly enough, I was sick, and when I would get sick, I'd lay next to my mom's bed, my mom and dad's bed.
	Well, my mom at the time was a practicing RN and my father is still a practicing neurosurgeon, so I think I was pretty lucky, but I ran to the bathroom to throw up and apparently I asphyxiated on my vomit and it stopped my heart.
	So my mom, I remember floating out of my body, pointing at the body, my body on the ground, Laughing at it.
	Laughing?
	Yeah, I was laughing at it hysterically.
	And then my mom came in and started recessing.
	Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	What did you find humorous about the situation?
	I gotta tell you, it was almost as though I couldn't figure that out, why I was pointing at my body, laughing at it.
	However, the feeling was no feeling of fear or anxiety or, it was a wonderful feeling.
	I must admit to you.
	And then, you know what you look like, but you're really not looking at yourself right now?
	I was looking at myself, watching myself, laughing at the body on the ground.
	How humorous, yeah.
	There I am, choking on my own vomit.
	Yeah, it was really scary.
	And then, well I guess now it is, but my dad came rushing in, because my mother was yelling for him, because she couldn't revive me, and threw her off, and then Started pounding on my chest and doing all this stuff and the next thing I know I was like third person back into first person laughing at the body on the ground and then laying back down into my body and waking up.
	Well, the irony about the whole thing is the next morning I started telling my mom, hey, why were you pounding on my chest?
	And she goes, what do you mean pounding on your chest?
	How do you know how I revived you?
	I said, I heard the whole thing and saw dad and everything running and And my dad just, you know, he was in his scrubs at the time and he just got up out of bed and he didn't want to hear it, you know.
	Off to the hospital he went.
	But see, because I was dead to the world to them, you know.
	But I saw him do the whole thing, you know, it's just very fascinating.
	All right, well that's absolutely a typical, um, you know, NDE.
	I mean, there you are out of your body.
	Now that, that reaction though, that humorous reaction, laughing at your own body, choking on its own vomit on the floor, I don't know about that part.
	But who knows, maybe the other side has a sort of a different sense of humor.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air, hello.
	Yes, hello.
	Yeah, I've got one for you.
	Have you ever had a call about a haunted restroom?
	A haunted restroom?
	Yeah.
	No, I can honestly say I don't believe so.
	Okay.
	This happened to myself and my new bride on Christmas Day of 2003.
	And neither of us really realized what was happening until we compared notes a few minutes later.
	We were out on a tour out on the island of Corregidor, just a short distance from you there.
	Took that very same tour, yes.
	Okay.
	We were on the jeep, a little tour shuttle they have there, and we toured the area that I guess they call Battery Row.
	That's right.
	Right, and there's a little public restroom there.
	Okay.
	Uh, and basically what happened is, uh, you know, we had a nice time on the tour there, and everybody loaded onto the Jeep, and, you know, the call of nature came to me, and I had to go then.
	So I went into this place and took care of my business, and just before I went out, this loud, booming voice came out so loud that it kind of echoed inside of that place.
	A very low, commanding voice just said, out of here.
	Out of here?
	Well, hey, I'd have no problem obeying that command instantly.
	I would be so out of it.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Corregidor, as you well know, sir, is a terribly haunted place.
	I was there and I could...
	Yeah, I could feel it all around me.
	Corregidor is astounding.
	So if any of you ever get to Southeast Asia and you have the opportunity to visit Corregidor, it's something you don't want to miss.
	I mean, it truly is an extremely haunted, extremely unusual place.
	What are the right words?
	Words are always hard to come by, but at any rate, a very difficult place to tolerate in a lot of ways because you know what went on there.
	It's being explained to you and you're seeing it with your own eyes.
	And you can just feel it.
	There's really no power on the island of Corregidor, but all that went on there is still in some way happening.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Good morning, Art.
	This is Jim.
	I'm calling from KCMO in Kansas City, Missouri.
	Of course.
	How are you doing, buddy?
	Doing great.
	Good to talk to you again, sir.
	I hope everything is going well for you in the Philippines.
	It sounds like it is.
	Anyway, I had a couple of quick things to pass along to you.
	You know, you've had guests on your program in the past.
	They've talked about rods.
	Oh, yes?
	Yes.
	I want you to know that from time to time, I do honestly believe that I see those things.
	You know, they're not really doing much of anything.
	They're just kind of darting past.
	I mean, it doesn't matter.
	They can either go up or sideways or, you know, in any of the three dimensions of space.
	But there's just no real pattern.
	I mean, sometimes they'll move kind of slowly, and I might catch them out of the corner of my eye or something like that.
	And then at other times, they move rather quickly.
	And I don't know how I would even begin to explain it to anybody that I know.
	But I honestly believe that they do exist.
	All right.
	I do too, Jim.
	And I think they're in the same category with what we call shadow people, things that you kind of see in your peripheral vision.
	Translucent type things, you know?
	That's right.
	Kind of dark.
	No, no, no.
	That's exactly right, Jim.
	And I think it fits right in with shadow people.
	And real quickly, the second thing I wanted to share with you is that I know you had Major Ed Dames on your program many, many times.
	He said something here not all that long ago in one of his remote viewing things that he did.
	He said that something to the effect of that the shuttle astronauts would be delayed maybe two or three days by NASA because there was debris or some kind of thing like that that would prevent them from landing.
	Are you familiar with that prediction?
	I recall a comment I think he made about a meteor shower, wasn't it?
	Well, I think the way it was, and maybe somebody can clarify, but anyway, it sounds to me like what he said was that we would have a big burst from the sun shortly after that.
	That's right.
	No, no, that is exactly right.
	And it was either debris or a meteor shower, something like that, and of course we recently did have a shuttle delay, but I think he was referring to an earlier shuttle mission Absolutely was.
	Although we all know that with remote viewing, getting the timing of an event exactly right is the most difficult part of that job.
	So, interesting observation indeed.
	Going to Mike in Ontario, Canada.
	Hi, Mike.
	Mr. Bell.
	Yes, sir.
	Yes, this is a really great opportunity to speak with you.
	Glad to have you.
	What's up?
	You know what?
	I understand you're at the level of I should say caliber of understanding and awareness that you're at and sometimes you almost seem like you get bored with the same old same old and connecting everything is the real tricky thing to do but as far as what you mentioned earlier about holes
	Many things, sir, many things, but not bored.
	I can assure you, not bored.
	This is the most interesting subject material on the face of the globe.
	You know, while every other radio program in the world is doing the same old stuff, I'll call it stuff, we're talking about things that nobody else does.
	So many things, perhaps, but never, I can assure you, bored.
	So what you're saying is it's on the edge.
	The material we cover is on the edge and sometimes plumb over the edge.
	Right, and you really appreciate different levels of understanding and awareness.
	Well, I'll tell you what.
	While a lot of the things that we say, at the time we say them, seem nutty as a fruitcake, I cannot count the number of times that six months or a year later the mainstream press is reporting what we reported and people laughed at earlier.
	Exactly, and this is helping people to become more awake.
	And most of mainstream is not awake, to the degree that it would be nice, but it almost seems like it's taking too long.
	Well, when you're out ahead of the curve, more times than not, it does seem like the rest of the world is just dragging along.
	Yes, that's correct.
	Yeah, tell me about it.
	I'm just waiting, just like you are, but as far as the whole situation I can appreciate that as well.
	What I've heard about the ozone layer is that it's repairing itself.
	I would be inclined to believe that given the complexity of the ecosystem of the planet, which almost makes it seem like it's alive, you can call it Gaia, Mother Earth, whatever, but it's repairing itself.
	If we surpass that with our smoke and our pollutants, you could overdo it and overtake it.
	The whole situation, in Area 51, all I've heard about that is there's a hole so deep in the ground, it's about two kilometers, where if one of these singularity experiments, or these black hole experiments that you were speaking of, gets out of control...
	That's in CERN, Switzerland, actually, where they're going to do that.
	And I don't know anything about a hole at Area 51, although I'm sure there are things beneath the ground there.
	And once again, I can assure you, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that whatever it is we do here is many things, but boring is definitely not one of them.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Thank you for taking my call.
	My name is Jeff, and I'm listening on KTRS in St.
	Louis, Missouri.
	Yes, sir.
	I have a comment about your guest is going to be talking about the Homeland Security bills, the wiretapping and all that stuff.
	Yes, sir.
	If I recall, there were certain civil liberties restrictions placed on Americans during the Second World War, weren't there?
	Yes, there were.
	And a lot of people, sir, forget that that happened.
	In fact, very restrictive things were done during the Second World War, but after the war, they were repaired, in fact, even enhanced.
	Now, this is a different type of war, of course, but if they were able to return the civil liberties after the Second World War, we should probably give them the benefit of the doubt that they would return the civil liberties after this war.
	Well, I tend to agree with you certainly, but as far as giving the government the benefit of the doubt, I'd hesitate on that one.
	Keep your eyes open.
	That's right.
	Never, what is it President Reagan said, trust but verify.
	And with respect to our own government, always, always keep your eye on them.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Hi, Alex.
	Yes.
	My name is Chris and I'm calling from Orange, California.
	And I have listened to you ever, I mean for years, back when my husband had hair, okay?
	I've never heard it put that way, okay.
	And back when I was lean.
	Many times, more than once, I've had to turn off the radio because you had somebody on talking about witchcraft or demonology, and I mean I was frightened to the point where I just didn't even want it coming on the radio, so I turned it off.
	I was wondering, was there anybody that ever scared you to the point where you said,
	I gotta end this interview, or you said a prayer, or you just said,
	you know, wow, you were really, truly frightened. I can listen forever about UFOs and about
	shadow government, but there is...
	The answer is yes.
	And the answer is that there was a young lady who called in.
	I don't know whether you happened to hear that program or not, but she was a Luciferian.
	She believed in the devil.
	And she believed that she was going to take her son to hell with her.
	And she described exactly what she intended to do.
	And that one scared me past the point of wanting to continue with it, but I nevertheless did continue with it.
	You know, I don't know if we have a copy of that.
	We should replay that someday.
	Since you asked the question, that would be my answer.
	There were a lot of shows that have scared me because of the material that we've done.
	But that one, that one went way over the edge for even me.
	Back to the First Time Caller line and Pam in Alaska.
	Hey Pam.
	Hi there.
	Hi.
	Hey, the other night I was listening when George was talking about Steve Irwin.
	Yes.
	And Crocodile Hunter.
	Somebody had mentioned that he always thought he would die early in an automobile accident.
	And so I was just thinking about that and wasn't the Corvette also called the Stingray at one time?
	The Corvette automobile?
	Because it was low to the ground.
	I think that might be correct.
	That's kind of an interesting metaphor.
	I don't know.
	Maybe.
	Yeah, I just thought of that.
	Because sometimes you get messages from the unconscious, but it's not always the literal I thought that was kind of interesting to talk about.
	It is interesting.
	Thank you very much.
	It's fascinating.
	I don't know.
	Was it called the Stingray?
	I think there is a possibility that it's so.
	Was the Corvette called the Stingray?
	He thought he would die early in an automobile accident.
	Somebody will confirm that for us.
	That is an interesting observation.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hello, this is Charlie in Austin, Texas, listening on FM.
	Yes, Charlie.
	You were proposing the scenario where we would create an artificial black hole at, I believe it was a CERN lab.
	That's right.
	And then you suggested whether or not, or asked whether anyone, whether someone should push the button or not.
	I think I would push the button.
	You would?
	The potential reward of the knowledge you suggested that the human species might gain.
	That's right.
	I think it might be worth it.
	That would justify our existence.
	Well, one good thing about making that decision, Charlie, would be that if you were wrong, you wouldn't have to apologize.
	Right, we would just flip out of existence.
	Exactly.
	You know, the universe, I believe, is infinite, and since we're such a small part of it, there would have to be easily a species which would replace us, so the universe would not miss us.
	Well, that may well be true.
	Interesting take on it all.
	And really, yes, you wouldn't have to apologize if we just blinked out of existence.
	Why, there'd be nobody shoving microphones and cameras in your face trying to get an apology because they'd all be gone.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	Yeah, I just heard a caller call in about the whole wiretap thing.
	And just to go along with that, a couple months ago, the military passed a bill to be putting You know, like how you can put chips in pets?
	They're going to be putting them in soldiers so they can keep track of soldiers, which I think is the government's lame attempt at starting to put biochips in everyone so they can keep track of people.
	And so, Pete, if they came to you and said, Pete, it's your time.
	We've got your chip right here.
	Lay down for a moment.
	We'll get it in there.
	It'll be painless.
	What would you say?
	I'd say... Remember, you're on the radio here.
	You know, I decline and would rather take my own life than be monitored in that respect.
	I mean, it's... You would rather take your own life?
	Oh yes, by far.
	It's one of those things where the government, you know, is trying to keep track of people.
	Well, you don't need to keep track of people.
	It's, you know, All right, listen Pete, I gotta go.
	The hour's over, but that's exactly what we'll be talking about when we get back.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	I'd kind of like to confirm what that lady said.
	Apparently Steve Irwin made a comment about thinking that he would be killed by an automobile at a, you know, young age.
	And if that's true, then certainly the rest of what she said is.
	I didn't know it at the time, but indeed any number of you have fast blasted me.
	The Corvette Stingray is correct.
	You know, what do I know about these things?
	I don't know a lot about automobiles.
	When I, when I was younger and Well, I was involved in radio, folks.
	When other guys my age were into girls and cars, and girls and cars, I was fooling with radios, taking radios apart, building them, figuring them out.
	I was in love with radio.
	That was my early first love, actually, radio.
	I didn't know that, but it is interesting, isn't it?
	It was called the Stingray.
	Something to think about, if he indeed did make that comment.
	All right, coming up in a moment is Roger Tulsis.
	Very appropriate, I would say.
	Listen to this story.
	Dateline Washington, September 28th, a few days ago.
	The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions.
	Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.
	The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people.
	That's a quote from Majority Leader John Bonner, a Republican from Ohio, in a statement after the bill passed 232 to 191.
	So it was a close call.
	Quote, to all those to always have reasons why you just can't vote yes, I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them, said he.
	Democrats shot back that the war on terrorism shouldn't be fought at the expense of civil and human rights.
	The bill approved by the House, they argued, gives the president too much power, leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.
	It is seeding the President's argument that Congress doesn't matter in this area.
	According to Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, the bill sponsored by Republican Heather Wilson, a Republican from New Mexico, that gives legal status under certain conditions to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping of calls and emails between people on U.S.
	soil making calls or sending emails to those in other countries.
	Under the measure, the President would be authorized to conduct such wiretaps if he notifies the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and Congressional leaders, believes an attack is imminent, and later explains the reason and names of the individuals and groups involved, renews his certification every 90 days.
	The Senate could also vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week.
	leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile
	them into a final bill that can only be delivered to President Bush before the November 7th
	congressional elections.
	For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version,
	but was not satisfied with it, adding that the administration, quote, looks forward to
	working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process.
	Now, it is indeed timely that Roger Tulsis, who is a Los Angeles private investigator specializing in electronic countermeasures, would be here.
	In the past 30 years he has swept over 2,500 locations for bugs and wiretaps.
	In recent years his business has included helping victims of electronic harassment and mind control.
	Electronic harassment takes place if someone uses any electronic device to aid them in invading your personal Privacy, property, for the purpose of gathering information illegally, or for the purpose of causing physical harm.
	Mr. Tolsys uses over $100,000 of high-tech equipment to try to identify the sources of electronic harassment.
	in a moment, Roger Tulsis.
	Alright, I would like to welcome Roger Tulsis to the program and I might have
	his last name I might be mispronouncing it Roger, welcome to the show.
	Am I slaughtering your last name?
	No, Art.
	As a matter of fact, last time we did a show together, you had it right that time as well.
	Okay, good.
	You're in the Philippines now?
	That's where I am, Manila.
	Wow, you went from high desert over to the tropics.
	That must have been a change, huh?
	A bit of a change, yes.
	From hot, very dry weather to hot, very wet weather.
	At any rate, listen, you heard me read the story at the top of the hour, so here we are.
	And where, indeed, are we, Roger?
	Is it 1984, George Orwell?
	Is all this coming now to fruition?
	Well, absolutely.
	You know, the last show I did with George, we went over what I refer to as the The 1984 Prophecies, and I don't know if people can still download that show from your streaming or not, because that was almost a complete show about looking at all those things that he included in his book relating to the telescreens that kept surveillance on us in our own homes, and video systems that actually looked at our facial expressions to make determinations whether we were telling the truth or not.
	We went into great detail on that show, so I don't want to try to rehash a lot of that.
	But, you know, the main thing about this is that we need to look at the supreme law of the land.
	The Fourth Amendment of our Bill of Rights, which is in force and effect, has to do with seizures, searches, and warrants.
	And just to go through it quickly, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects against unreasonable searches and seizures should not be violated And no warrants issued but upon probable cause supported by oath and affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.
	Roger, I'm going to play devil's advocate with you a little bit on this subject because I'm not positive that I disagree with the administration's position on this.
	A caller in the first hour said something that I want to kind of run by you here.
	I don't disagree that our rights and our privacy Is to some degree certainly being invaded right now by what's going on.
	I mean that's clear.
	And so is it crushing the Bill of Rights and Constitution?
	Yes.
	To some degree it is.
	But as the caller pointed out, during the Second World War, we had an equal if not greater crushing of those rights, constitutional rights and so forth.
	But, you know, after the war ended, they were restored.
	And, in fact, one could even argue enhanced.
	And everything you just said a moment ago, while true, I think could be used to argue for these warrantless wiretaps under the current circumstances as easily as against them.
	Well, the evasion of the privacy during World War II I don't think was anywhere near as invasive as the fact that the NSA now Has immediate access to everybody's phone lines, everybody's ISP lines, and also the ability through satellites to look through your structure of your home to some degree.
	All this is pre-wired.
	Part of it's pre-wired under CALEA, which was passed in 1996, which required all the phone companies to tax your bill so that they would pre-wire your phone for wiretaps.
	Meaning that any agency like the NSA or other police agency can literally sit down at a computer now, and by using long line networks, just through a keystroke, throw listening devices, which in this case now would be a hard drive, to record all of your conversations and all of your work on the internet, real time.
	Now, tell me how in World War II there was anything as invasive as that?
	Well, look, times, I wouldn't argue, times have changed.
	The ability, the electronic ability of these agencies is far greater than it was then to do these kinds of things.
	But under the circumstances, with the threat, and I'm sure you certainly agree, or well, maybe I should ask, you do agree we are living under a threat, right?
	Well, I do agree we are living under a threat, but I don't see the point of sacrificing the Constitution.
	I don't see the problem with having a warrant for a wiretap.
	In other words, when this judge recently, I'm looking at the article here, this District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, her statement was that she thought that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which required Having warrants was adequate, and basically she said there are no hereditary kings in America, no powers created by the Constitution.
	So what she's saying is that the balance, the whole idea of checks and balances, in the sense that you can have an executive branch that's going to say, oh, we want to just wiretap wherever we want to wiretap, and the Constitution says, well, you can't do that without the judiciary giving Authorization and therefore it's a check and balance between the executive branch and the judiciary and hopefully Things don't get to the point where where our rights are totally crushed So once you put that check and balance to the side saying, you know, I'm a king now We don't I don't have to go ask permission about Doing these kind of things.
	I'm just going to flip the switches and And it's not only just listening to whomever they want to listen to, because it's not... The reason that they don't want these warrants is because they are not looking at people that they really have as a target.
	A lot of what's happening now is because all of our calls are going through this NSA facility, which is in Virginia.
	And you have football fields of supercomputers, and these supercomputers listen to words.
	They listen to human conversation and they make terminations whether there's any words passing through those conversations that are of interest.
	Same thing on the ISP.
	If you type an email and there are words in that email that are of interest, that means there's kind of a dragnet going on.
	And from that dragnet, they're going to find phone numbers of interest that have keywords that they're looking for.
	I understand electronically, and from a software point of view, how this occurs.
	I'm just not sure that I feel threatened by it.
	OK, but I just want to make the final point.
	The reason they don't want warrants is because they're not naming people.
	They're vacuum cleaning all the communications in the world, including us here, and they are going to, on this fishing expedition, they're going to find certain lines that are going to have information that's relevant to what they consider to be Something worth investigating.
	And so, they can't even name the person until they've vacuum-cleaned the word and found the line that it's on.
	And therefore, we're kind of... the invasion is not based on a probable cause.
	It's based on a machine vacuum-cleaning looking for offensive words and words that may be a problem.
	And then once it's detected that, then they're going to single that line out and they're going to make that line... Okay, I'm with you.
	You have just explained to me why they need warrantless searches.
	I mean, you've just given me the reason why they need them.
	They may not know, for example, if we've got a computer looking for a bomb or perhaps a nuclear weapon or, I don't know what words would trigger it, probably a zillion, but they're looking for somebody who wants to harm, do mass destruction to many Americans.
	How can they name that person if they don't know who it is?
	Now, if a machine comes up and finds that person, well then fine.
	They then have the name or the number and they can go look for it.
	I am playing devil's advocate, but I do believe this to some degree, Roger.
	I mean, we are under a very, very serious threat here.
	A nuclear device could go off in the United States, destroying a city, or many cities, or some sort of biological weapon, or something horrible could occur, because we know these people want us dead.
	They don't want to bargain with us.
	They don't want to negotiate with us.
	They just want to kill us.
	Now, that's a tough enemy to have, Roger.
	Yes, I agree with you.
	But, you know, most of these people will go down to 7-Eleven and they'll buy a nameless cell phone, you know, a track phone or one of these other phones where you don't sign up for anything.
	And here you have the focus of most of these systems that at least are the ones that are of the CALEA law enforcement type where they pre-wired Everybody's phone in America, and so for those people that have those unlimited resources where they can change phones every day or two, it's almost impossible for this kind of vacuum cleaning system to really track these people that well.
	So, you know, I'm just saying that when they had us spend millions and millions of dollars getting all of our phone lines pre-wired into the NSA, The thing about the cell phone industry and these cell phones, and also voice over IP, which is a whole other thing.
	You're talking about packets that are not one line of stream.
	Packets can end up going on an individual basis.
	They can even go different routes.
	If you look at the way IP systems operate a phone conversation, part of it could be looping through thousands of miles in one direction, and part can be in other thousands of miles.
	And when they land at the final target end site, they get reconstituted back together again, and that's even more difficult to try to do.
	Okay, I take your word that all of this is going on, and I'm sure it is, but again, I ask you, are you sure it is not justified?
	Well, I personally think that you really have to be cautious about Surrendering all these rights that these founding fathers put in place for a real reason.
	Well, that's why it's so controversial.
	There's no question about it.
	We're arguing about this.
	Right.
	They always felt that the government was the real problem, and that it would be more likely that tyranny would come from within than abroad.
	And that's why they wanted to put these three branch checks and balances in place.
	And the fact that they have been abrogated, to me, is personally distressing.
	I really think that we should be focusing, you're talking about a nuclear weapon coming in on a freighter, in a container, and yet if you look at the percentage of containers that are actually screened for these kind of things, I think the percentage is very, very low.
	Well, it is.
	And the ability, of course, the manpower and the ability to look at the contents of each and every one is limited.
	We don't have endless manpower.
	We have giant borders.
	We have lots of problems.
	And I assume that's why they're following You know, this warrantless wiretap thing in the first place because we really can't otherwise do it.
	And so, look, Roger, I'm not real happy with it going on either.
	I don't think any American would be when you see your rights being eroded.
	But again, During World War II, there was very serious erosion of those rights.
	However, after the threat ended, so did the erosion of rights.
	In fact, it was even enhanced after that.
	So, isn't it possible that whatever it is that's happening right now will be ended when the threat is ended?
	You know, I think with mission creep, and I think you probably know what that is, I do.
	You know, we're just going to do a little bit today and tomorrow.
	We're going to do a little bit more until next thing you know, you're into this 1984 Big Brother Society where you've got a camera in your own house that watches you and you don't really know when you're being watched and when you're not being watched.
	So the question becomes, if you abrogate the Fourth Amendment and say, oh, well, you know, we're going to fudge it now.
	We're no longer going to need warrants on that.
	The next thing you're going to know Is that these, you know, and we're almost there in the sense that most people's or a lot of people's computers have cameras on them.
	And if that computer is on an ISP full time, you don't really know whether the thing really is sending out the images or not.
	It's kind of difficult to tell unless, of course, you pull your actual cable from the back of the computer when you're not looking at, when you're not working with it, which I suggest doing anyway.
	I think that's a good idea.
	One more thing on this, you know, the thing we haven't talked about, data mining.
	Because one of the very other big stories is when AT&T admitted that they are giving their whole database relating to phone connection information over to the NSA and so are the other phone companies.
	They say that all the numbers that are dialed between everybody is their business information and you can't have no objection what they do with their business information.
	But of course, that information lists every number and every contact that everybody makes with one another.
	It wouldn't be difficult to go back in that database and form a chart of everybody that Art Bell knows and everybody Art Bell talked to for the past three years.
	Now, the question is, in the old days, when they had normal wiretaps and they gave warrants, judges gave warrants for Mafia and the rest of these people they tapped, They would have dialed number recorders and the preliminary way they would do it if they weren't sure they were going to give them a full wiretap was ask them to issue a warrant for a dialed number recorder.
	Now what it would do is it would it wouldn't take the conversation content down, but it would take down the numbers that a person called.
	And as a consequence, if they started calling other mafia people as an example, then the court, looking at that information, would then issue a warrant based on the dialed number recorder.
	Hold it there for a minute.
	You're going to have to hold that point.
	We're at the bottom of the hour.
	We'll be right back with Roger Tulsis.
	I'm Art Bell from Manila in the Philippines.
	We'll be right back.
	Good morning, good afternoon, or evening, or whatever it is, wherever you are.
	This is one hell of a topic, actually.
	Scott in Fresno, California says, those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
	You are a coward, referring, I'm sure, to me.
	Well, with the exception of the You Are a Coward party, quoting, of course, Thomas Jefferson.
	And I understand that quote perfectly well, Scott.
	I really do.
	You know, our president, those who are elected, serve to protect us.
	They serve to protect the nation and the Constitution, what's left of it, and I certainly agree it's been somewhat shredded along with the Bill of Rights.
	There's no question, I'm not arguing that, I'm saying That we live in times that demand that for them to do their job, I'm making the case that they need this vacuum cleaner, they need this ability to look at information randomly, and if they find something that's really awful, they need the ability to pursue it.
	Normally, to get a wiretap, it requires the judiciary.
	In other words, judiciary, some judge somewhere has to say, yeah, there's enough of a reason.
	But we live in a day and age where the opposite argument that Roger made, or the same argument really, can be applied for the need for this vacuum cleaner.
	There's so damn much information out there that in order to know Where your threat is, where your threat is coming from, you need this large net of information, and without it, you're not going to have a name to take to a judge, but with it, you might save a U.S.
	city or many.
	I'm going to make that side of the argument.
	We'll be right back.
	Let me say this again.
	There's absolutely no question about the fact that we live in a new day and age.
	Now, this day and age allows data mining, it allows, and by the way, we ought to explain, and we'll hear in a moment, what data mining is, and a lot of other things, and warrantless taps, and the ability for NSA computers to listen for dangerous phrases or words that might indicate somebody wishing to do us harm.
	Again, we have an enemy right now.
	That does not want to bargain with us.
	They don't want America to pull out of here or there or else.
	They simply, they want to kill us.
	Whether it's with biological weapons that would sweep across the nation killing all that they come in contact with or a nuclear device that we know they just about have their hands on or will shortly that would erase a city or many cities in the United States.
	I mean this is an unprecedented Danger that requires, it seems to me, unprecedented surveillance.
	So, Roger, I'll tell you what, let's get down to definitions.
	Data mining, what is data mining?
	Okay, well before we get to data mining, I want to just turn this around for a second just to finish up on what we're talking about.
	Let's say that I ask Art Bell, what things is he willing to allow the government to look at on a warrantless basis?
	And I just made a little list here, and I'm curious to ask you, would it be okay for the government to, on a warrantless basis, look at your phone records?
	Just a yes or no answer.
	Yes.
	Okay, how about your dialed number information, all the people you call?
	Yes.
	How about your bank records?
	Yes.
	How about your credit card purchases?
	Yes.
	How about your health records?
	I can't see the relevance for that one.
	Okay, how about your gas credit card receipts?
	My gas credit card receipts?
	Well, I guess you already covered that, really, with my bills, but... Yes or no?
	Yeah.
	Okay, store purchases?
	Yeah.
	ISP browsing records?
	Sure.
	Library records?
	Sure.
	Art, what's left?
	If you have given permission on this list so far, What of your privacy is left?
	Not a whole lot, but Roger, you know what?
	None of those things that you mentioned am I afraid for people to see.
	I mean, I'm not hiding anything, so it's pretty damn boring stuff.
	I understand that, but the reason the Founding Fathers wrote the Fourth and Fifth Amendments I'm very well aware why they did that.
	This is the information that they sought to protect from government without a judicial order.
	Because if we go through this list here, if I've got all that information, I pretty much can tell anywhere from 80 to 90 percent about what Art Bell's life is about, what he does, where he goes, what he purchases, who he knows.
	Roger, my life is pretty much an open book anyway.
	Well, I understand that.
	I understand the underlying theory and what you're trying to point out here.
	I'm just saying that in an honest response to what you asked, with the exception of my medical records, and that's really nobody's business and it's not relevant to terrorism as far as I know, with that exception, I don't care about the rest of it.
	Yeah, well, you know, that's what they're counting on.
	I think that they're counting on everybody saying, well, let's just Let's just have an open book, and we can go into these records without warrants, and everybody's life is fully investigatable under a microscope, and we'll just take the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, and we'll just cancel it.
	We don't need it anymore.
	I didn't say there shouldn't be oversight with regard to what's done with the information.
	There has to be oversight.
	Yeah, that is the issue though, is that all this is now happening on a warrantless basis.
	Especially because...
	Well, again, Roger, I can understand the reason why they need warrantless searches.
	And the reason is because the flow of information is so gigantic that there's really no other way for the authorities to look for the people that they're looking for and find them if they have to deliver a name and address and go in front of a judge first.
	Otherwise, if people are allowed to talk about where they're going to place the nuclear weapon, when they're going to detonate it, how the cells get together and, you know, do all the things that the terrorists would do to destroy the United States, then if there's no other way to get it, then I guess I give up those rights and I say, look, I have nothing to hide.
	Go ahead and do it.
	But when we end the threat, and when and if we win the war, it ends and we go back to the way things were.
	Well, there's no sunset on the Patriot Act at the moment.
	I think they just renewed it for a bunch of years.
	But anyway, my question becomes is that if you say, go ahead and take all these privacies away from me now, have we altered the nature of what freedom is as a foundation in America?
	We have, yes.
	Well, we know that we've been successful for the past 200 years on these principles that the Founding Fathers put in place, especially the Bill of Rights.
	When we start giving executive branches the ability to cancel sections of the Constitution, where do we start going into tyranny?
	Well, tyranny, of course, would be a misuse of that information, wouldn't it, Roger?
	It would be, but how are you going to keep somebody as this court, this Lady, this judge said here about having someone being a king with the powers of the king, as she explained in her ruling here.
	I don't have a phrase right in front of me.
	That's all right, Roger.
	Suppose you were the President of the United States, and you had some pretty solid information that a group, let's call them Al-Qaeda, was trying to get a nuclear weapon into the U.S., or perhaps even already had them here.
	And they were doing the final stages of preparation to detonate them, or that something horrible was going to be released, some biological terror released that would go across the land like a firestorm, killing everybody it came in contact with.
	If you were the President, Roger, And as your CIA director or NSA director, I told you that this was the case and that we needed information on a scale that we've been talking about tonight.
	Roger, you would say what?
	Well, I would say you need to direct these surveillances as we have always had in the past, where you're really looking at those individuals that you're doing a direct investigation on.
	You know, this data mining, where you're just going through and just looking for anybody saying anything, you know, it moves very far into the police state, where words, or speaking words, or we tape something off somebody's line and let's just send the Gestapo over to arrest everybody.
	And of course, you know, the other thing that apparently has been happening is that the government suspended habeas corpus.
	Which is another very basic principle that's been with us for hundreds of years coming from England.
	Let me ask you this, Roger.
	Have you actually seen any Nazi stormtroopers arresting people based on emails or telephone calls they made in the U.S.
	yet?
	Can you document that happening?
	Well, I do.
	I have one client who ended up, he was in a library and he was visiting websites That had to do with Islamic stuff.
	He's not an Islamic guy, but he was doing research on the subject matter and he was at the library connecting it.
	He spent time at this library.
	Anyway, next thing you know, and about two weeks, three weeks later, there is a uniformed
	local police officer and some guys from the TSA come in and they literally take him out
	of the library with his computer, forcibly seize him and remove him, take him out to
	a truck, download his whole hard drive, copy the hard drive, and give him his computer
	back, interrogate him for a period of time, and then send him back and then release him.
	And then released him.
	And then released him.
	But it freaked this poor guy out.
	I mean, you know, they came into the library.
	They asked about it, went to the librarian, said they were going to do this, asked who the guy was.
	And, you know, he knew she knew it was and and literally came and removed him.
	There was not a warrant.
	There was not a court order.
	There was nothing other than just removing him and removing his information, copying his information.
	And they didn't ask permission.
	They just did it.
	Ah, okay.
	Well, that's not exactly, you know, certainly that's a worrisome story, but it's not exactly what I meant.
	When do you get worried?
	Was he tossed in jail?
	No, no, they didn't toss him in jail, but they copied all of his information on a warrantless basis.
	I'm just wondering, when do you get worried about what's happening?
	Well, I'm worried about what's happening.
	Well, where is the limit for you?
	You apparently think everything's okay.
	No, I think that... When does it... Okay, I'm trying to answer your question.
	I think that the limit is when you begin to see a misuse of that information.
	When you see a misuse of warrantless searches.
	When you see people, for example, oh, I don't know, let's construct an example.
	Let's say somebody writes an email, and in that email, oh, they admit they are cheating on their taxes.
	Alright, so somehow this giant vacuum cleaner vacuums that up, and instead of discarding it because it's not relevant to a terrorist act, it's delivered to the IRS, and then you're arrested for tax evasion or something like that.
	I would say that would be my limit.
	Okay, well how would we ever know that investigations like that aren't prompted by this kind of surveillance, but in fact they say normally what happens on those kind of things, because they did this in Los Angeles.
	The police in the 1980s were illegally wiretapping people.
	They had skipped the process of search warrants.
	And they were just going out and wiretapping people.
	And they were gathering information about people that were doing criminal enterprises.
	And when they raided the places and they charged these people, they made up the stories that they had gotten all this information from informants.
	Well, yeah, eventually the whole thing got busted.
	But the question is, is that when you allow unlimited wiretapping, without warrants, without judicial surveillance, is this the normal corruption that follows?
	Where information is gathered and dossiers are gathered about people, and these things sit there to the appropriate time.
	When the government decides, well, this is somebody we need to take out, we'll just say that we had informants, and we don't want to disclose the informants because they're undercover, and this is the normal corruption process.
	That you're trying to stop when you... Well, that is corrupt.
	I agree with you.
	That's corrupt and that's illegal.
	Well, you just told me.
	Well, yeah, but in those days you needed warrants.
	You needed warrants.
	And that's why it was illegal.
	If you have situations where there's no longer a need for a warrant, then who's overseeing all this?
	Or is it just now a free-for-all where the government listens to whoever they want and we are truly In the Winston Smith 1984 scenario of everybody constantly looking over their shoulder to see if they're going to be the next ones taken in for interrogation and locked up indefinitely without a habeas corpus to bring them before a judge as well.
	Well, you're jumping ahead there.
	I mean, that's not happening right now.
	Well, a habeas corpus has been suspended by the Bush administration for these individuals that were American citizens.
	I don't know.
	I remember the one case, whether he was in Guantanamo or not, but he was held on going and never charged as being an enemy combatant, but he was...
	He wasn't in an army anywhere.
	He was a U.S.
	citizen.
	Actually, I think I'm aware of the case that you're talking about.
	And I think you're right.
	Look, I'm not suggesting that warrantless stuff is good.
	I'm not saying it's great.
	I'm not saying I like it.
	I'm just saying that if I was the President of the United States, Roger, and they told me that the kind of threat that we talked about a little while ago Was indeed hanging over our heads, and my CIA director told me, look, in the current world we live in, with email, with voice over IP, with all of the different communications possibilities and people plotting to kill us, we don't have the names.
	We can't go to a judge because we don't have the names.
	And the only way, Mr. President, we're really going to be able to stop this is with this giant vacuum cleaner.
	But we're not going to misuse it.
	There's going to be oversight.
	I think as President, Looking at this threat, I would say, okay.
	And I guess that's what our president has said.
	Well, the question is, what is oversight?
	And what is the kind of oversight that's truly going to protect these constitutional values?
	The interesting part, if you go back to 1984, and when Big Brother put everybody under this gross surveillance, his justification for doing so, that everybody needed to give up their freedoms, was that there was this dark force out there, this enemy.
	We don't really quite know who they are.
	But we do know they want to destroy us.
	And because those people are there and we have to be vigilant about their aggression, everybody's going to have to make ongoing sacrifices for an undetermined amount of time because of this threat.
	And it is the mantra that comes out of 1984 that everybody has to have these surveillance televisions in their homes.
	And also in the streets and of course you know they're wiring videos in almost every city in America and some of them are very sophisticated.
	Yes, I'm aware of that.
	I certainly would not be in favor of having a camera, for example, in my home, and I don't think that's justified under the current level of threat that we have.
	I don't think it would ever be justified.
	I can't imagine everybody having a camera in their home, and I think that's going over the top here a little bit.
	Well, then we better not cancel the Fourth Amendment, because that's particular for that kind of... the shield around our homes is a Fourth Amendment shield.
	If we start abrogating the Fourth Amendment and saying, oh, well, you know, we'll fudge it out here and no warrant for this or that, you know, it is mission creep against these Founding Fathers' intent and I'm just, you know, we're on a slippery slope, that's all I can say.
	Well, we are on a slippery slope in more ways than one, Roger, and again, if I were to, you know, put you into the position of being president and I told you we were under this kind of threat, which by the way I believe we are, I just can't imagine you would say, sorry, You're going to have to have a warrant for any tap of any sort that you do, otherwise you cannot do them.
	Now, doesn't that cripple law enforcement under present circumstances, Roger, to the point where they're not going to be able to find the people that want to kill us, and therefore something truly awful is going to happen?
	Yeah, of course I'm not saying that, but I'm in agreement with the original question of why hadn't the Bush administration gone to the FISA court, because the FISA court said, hey, you've got 72 hours, go ahead and tap away.
	But at the end of 72 hours, please come back to us for an authorization.
	I think that was not unreasonable.
	Well, I don't know what to say here.
	I think after giving it a lot of thought, under the current level of threat to the United States, I, as President, I think would authorize exactly and pursue exactly what the President of the United States has pursued.
	And I know it's scary to a lot of people, and it's even scary to me, Roger, but I just, I don't see any alternative.
	We do live in very different times.
	You'd be the one to certainly tell us about that.
	Well, now we're not going to have enough time.
	I really would like to just get a general definition for what data mining is.
	Okay.
	Well, data mining means taking databases of all different natures and then putting them into supercomputers and making determinations about individuals.
	So, let's say that we take all your phone records and all your bank records and your credit card reports and your health report and your GPS or your car black box information and your store purchases And your ISP browsing records, and your library records, and gas credit receipts, and put all those things into a computer, and massage all that information, we can come up with a pretty solid profile about how you live your life.
	All right.
	Hold it right there, Roger.
	Roger Tulsis is my guest.
	I'm Art Bell.
	This, of course, is Coast to Coast AM, doing our own kind of data mining in the nighttime.
	It is.
	Morning, afternoon, evening, wherever you are.
	And I realize that I'm probably lighting the fires of the conspiratorial people out there, and even some of the non-conspiratorial people.
	But I wonder if this has occurred to any of you, and I wonder if it's occurred to Roger.
	9-11 was the worst terrorist attack.
	Act ever committed against the United States.
	I suppose you could go back and declare Pearl Harbor to be a terrorist act, but it was clearly an act of war.
	Actually, as 9-11 was, really.
	But consider this.
	Perhaps if we had that vacuum cleaner Roger talks about, that dragnet of information that the President wants, prior to 9-11, maybe 9-11 would not have happened.
	We'll take that up with Roger in a moment.
	I understand that looking back, you know, vision and looking back to 9-11 from today
	is a very easy thing to do and perhaps even a cheap shot but I can't resist.
	Roger, if this blanket of information, this vacuum cleaner that you talk about, would have prevented 9-11, would you have been in favor of it then, Roger?
	Well, if you look at the history of 9-11, they had the most important information right there.
	They knew that there were these Arab guys taking flying lessons, trying to fly aircraft, but not really being particularly interested in landing them or taking them off.
	Well, we knew about all that afterward.
	But these FBI agents that were notified by the flight school ended up Exchanging paperwork with one another and getting nothing done with that piece of intelligence.
	I'm familiar with all that, but my point, Roger, my question was, if this blanket, this vacuum cleaner of information would have prevented 9-11, would it have been a reasonable use of power to do so?
	Yeah, I don't think that that's the kind of intelligence that would have prevented this kind of thing.
	I think the on-the-ground, personalized intelligence, like, hey, there's guys over here that are taking flying lessons, and they're way out of whack for the normal students that we have.
	On that one-to-one, I don't think the electronic vacuum cleaning thing is going to be anywhere near as successful.
	In general, if you look at the intelligence community saying all this information about these weapons of destruction in Saddam Hussein's hands, and all of that ended up being inaccurate, there's a lot I mean, you can give people, the community, these machines, but if they don't sift through the information in a meaningful manner, and they aren't organized enough to have their own internal communications working with that sifted information, then it's kind of a wasted effort.
	We've all given up our rights to Well, now you're making a different argument.
	You're saying that they're not, what would be the right word, they're just not using the information that they're getting.
	I think, well, my point being is I think they're going to get, 99% of the information they're going to get is about, is just going to be honest United States citizens that aren't doing anything other than Oh, that's absolutely correct, Roger.
	Boy, are you right on with that one.
	99% certainly is going to be innocent U.S.
	citizens doing this or that that gets flagged.
	You're absolutely correct, Roger.
	It's that 1% that we're all worried about.
	And I think the 1% is going to be a little shrewder than using the normal means of communication.
	You know, I know, have you seen some of the encoding that goes on in pictographs where I can send you encoded information in pictures?
	No, but I can imagine.
	Alright, well, basically, one of the things that's got the NSA stumped, and a lot of other people stumped, is you can take pixels in a normal picture, which is thousands and thousands of them, and you can encrypt within that picture, and thousands of pixels, specific complex information messages that you can send from point A to point B, which, when they scan, you know, it'll be a A JPEG or something like that when it gets scanned, then it's a question of, well, do you actually have the muscle and the amount of computers necessary to take all those thousands of pixels in a particular picture and start to try to decode them to see if there is some kind of encoded encrypted message in them?
	You know, now you're really starting to push the limits of acres and acres of supercomputers Uh, and I really have my doubts of whether the amount of pictures going across the internet, every one of them could be decoded for potential secret information.
	So, if you're talking about that level of sophistication, that all this money, all this time, and all this, you know, all this heartbreak they were going through about The average person's rights is kind of a wasted effort to begin with.
	Well, yeah, but, Rog, if they had that level of sophistication, they wouldn't have been walking into flight schools, you know, just stating that they wanted to learn how to fly a plane and not land it.
	That doesn't sound like a gigantic level of sophistication to me.
	Yeah, it doesn't, does it?
	And the fact that the intelligence community missed the boat And then I love Condoleezza Rice coming on and saying, you know, we never thought about aircraft being flown into buildings, but yet there's this one author, his name slips my mind, but about five years before that, at the end of this one book, and I've got the book here somewhere, a Japanese terrorist flies his plane into the Capitol building, I forget which, but I can go look in the other room because I've got the book there.
	I'm sure somebody thought of it.
	Oh yeah, it was in a novel by the guy that writes all the action stuff, the military action stuff.
	You probably know his name off the top of your head.
	Doesn't matter.
	I'm sure somebody thought of it but my point is that obviously with the scheme of that size there were phone calls or there were emails or there was some kind of coordinating communication that went on prior to 9-11 and there is some reason to believe that if we had had the vacuum cleaner we're talking about right now, this objectionable vacuum cleaner you're talking about, it might have prevented 9-11.
	You know it might have but you know from a technical standpoint And people walking into 7-Elevens and buying phones that they discard two days later, you know, I don't really give it much hope that they're ever really going to make headway from that kind of technical standpoint.
	I mean, they can data mine you and I together.
	They can data mine us and get accurate information about us because, you know, we're substantial individual citizens with all these accounts and credit cards and all the rest of this stuff.
	And we're all in there.
	But Abdul and his buddies that just hop into 7-Eleven and pick up a couple cell phones and three days later throw them in the trash.
	Well, but if the content of one of those conversations tips them off to where something is going to happen, or when it's going to happen, or gives them some tidbit of information that leads them to stopping something that would kill perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans, then it would have been worth it, right?
	If it would have that end result, it would be worth it, I guess.
	But to me, you know, us throwing the Constitution out the window and throwing out Well, I don't argue with that.
	I think we should have secure borders as well.
	That's where I think we're going to make headway.
	You can spend billions on supercomputers' data mining, but I think all you're going to do is have monster surveillance.
	No, no, no.
	Wait a minute, Roger.
	I think we should have secure borders as well. That's where I think we're going to make headway. You can spend billions
	on supercomputers, data mining, but I think all you're going to do is have monster surveillance.
	No, no, no, no. Wait a minute, Roger. You said you were for secure borders, right? Yes.
	Okay, well, one thing coming across the border is information, Roger.
	It's not just ships and airplanes.
	It's also one hell of a lot of information.
	If I read this correctly, they wanted to listen to communications that were coming from outside the U.S.
	to the U.S.
	or the other way around.
	No, but the information is not going to blow up in New York City and cause millions of people to vaporize.
	No, but that's part of border protection.
	It's electronic border protection, Roger.
	Yeah, well, it sounds good.
	Well, I mean, I just used your own phrase.
	You said border protection.
	Well, ships and cargo containers are not the only things coming across the border.
	Well, I know, but to me, the real destructive materials are really what you need to stop.
	I mean, of course, you know, the interesting part about it is look at this guy, Salvo, that had a sniper rifle over there in Washington.
	Here's a guy that actually brought the whole economy to a screeching halt with two people with a sniper rifle that went out and shot people every couple of days.
	And nobody went out of their houses.
	They were able to halt the whole economy.
	So the interesting part of it is that sometimes you don't need a biological weapon or a bomb.
	You just need a sniper rifle and a couple of looney toonies and you can take down the economy of a city.
	And just think what happens if you were to take, you know, 20 or 30 cities and do them simultaneously.
	Well, that is my point, Roger.
	9-11, look what it did to the economy.
	I know, but how much planning do you need two guys in a sniper rifle?
	Do you think there's going to be that much communication coming through the NSA if these guys decide to do that kind of thing?
	Where, you know, it's nowhere near as sophisticated as flying airplanes, but it could certainly be I mean, into buildings, but it can certainly be as devastating to an economy in an area.
	Now, the other side of this, Roger, is that since 9-11, we have not had anything of that magnitude or greater happen yet.
	Now, when the CIA or NSA or any of the initial agencies do something right, and they stop something, we normally don't hear about it, do we?
	I don't know.
	I really don't know.
	We did in the case of the England That's true.
	that happened relating to them wanting to blow up the airliners.
	So it seems to me that if they do, these days they're so desperate for some positive showing
	that all these billions spent, I mean, we haven't even talked about what's really happening
	with the economy.
	I mean, not only is the war consuming about $3 billion a day, but just think about what
	the costs are to secure America as we move billions and billions more into debt.
	the whole wars on board money and so this people so Actually, I'm glad you mentioned the thing in England, Roger.
	Do you know how they got onto that offhand?
	No, I don't.
	You don't.
	I wonder if it could be some sort of electronic surveillance because, gee, they were going to blow up all kinds of airliners en route to the U.S.
	from Great Britain and perhaps other areas in Europe.
	That would have been really, really horrible, but they stopped it.
	Yeah, they did, and they did it with wiretaps.
	I know they did have those locations tapped.
	The question was whether they got on to who they were through data mining, through this
	NSA-flavored surveillance, or whether, you know, what was, or was it on-the-ground type
	intelligence that really got the main connection going to begin with?
	Well, you did say there was surveillance going on.
	I had read that.
	I had read that they had all those locations wiretapped.
	So there you have it.
	Hundreds and hundreds, thousands perhaps, of Americans and others would have been blown to bits on their way across the Atlantic, but they stopped it.
	Yeah, of course.
	But of course, once again, did it come from data mining on a warrantless basis, or was there actually on-ground intelligence Whereby they knew that these people were trained in some place where there was radicals, and they've been following them anyway, and then they found their nest, so to speak, and then at that point they put surveillance on.
	It's hard to say what the original source is, but of course what they're trying to say here on this Dragnet stuff here is that we don't need the warrants.
	We're just going to Dragnet all of communications all over America, and we're going to pop up These terrorists in that manner, and I just don't know if that really is going to fly.
	Well, I'm not sure either, Roger.
	I just know the size and the seriousness of the threat, and I'm convinced, Roger, that if we don't stay up with them, they're going to get us.
	And they're going to get us with a biological weapon, or a nuclear weapon, or whatever they can get their hands on, because all they want to do is kill us, Roger.
	I don't know how you battle somebody like that.
	Without taking extraordinary measures.
	I just don't know.
	It's my view that we should never have gotten involved with these people, because the history of the Middle East is that they are warring tribes, warring lords.
	For 10,000 years in that area, basically what they do is they raid one another, and it's that kind of feudal warring society.
	They don't go to work every day and punch time clocks.
	No, they don't.
	You know, their attitude over there is, we're going to be warned anyway, and you know, send your army over and come on over, you know?
	We're going to be fighting anyway, you might as well just come on over and fight with us as well.
	Well, Roger, I think what the Islamic terrorists are telling us, and they did tell us this very recently, was either convert or die.
	Now, that's pretty clear.
	How do you feel about conversion to Islam?
	You know, I don't know that they really have that Hitler-take-over-the-world kind of attitude, but I do know that we've gone over there for I don't know how many decades now and have been attempting to... Well, Roger, they do have that attitude.
	You've been on the videotapes that have been released and played again and again.
	They absolutely have that attitude.
	Okay, well, you know, my view of it is that the world can live In peaceful coexistence, but the point is that you've got to let the people in those regions make their own political decisions, and you can't interfere with it.
	It's like going out in the woods and you see a bee's nest, and you go take a stick and you start beating on the bee's nest.
	The net result is that you're going to get the heck stung at you.
	Well, in the U.S.
	we separate government and religion, or at least we try to.
	There, their government is their religion.
	Their religion is their government.
	Yeah, I know, and I don't think we're going to have much success installing a democracy over there.
	So far, it's not been too good.
	So, I don't know, at $3 billion a day, I think we really need to focus on New Orleans and some of these other cities and our infrastructure and our roads and our bridges and our education system and all these other things.
	I mean, we're busy rebuilding Iraq, but, you know, I just covered 12,000 miles in the past three months on assignments in America, and I can tell you the roads in America and the bridges are not good.
	They can use work, there's no question about it, you're right.
	They're in pretty poor shape compared to the way they were years ago, no question.
	Infrastructure is kind of rotting away, huh?
	Yeah, so, you know, I don't really think that that three billion needs to go over there every day.
	And of course, losing the kids is another shame.
	To me, that's another thing.
	Losing people is always a shame, but we are fighting for a reason.
	I was certainly against the Iraq War prior to our going in, but we are there now, and so I kind of feel that we have to win it, Roger.
	Well, do you think that American young people will strap dynamite on themselves and go blow themselves up for the cause?
	No.
	I don't either.
	But clearly, those who want us dead will do it.
	Well, I understand that, but I'm saying that's why we can't win over there.
	We don't have that level of commitment.
	Well, actually, Roger, you talked a little while ago about democracy and that we can't install it.
	I don't know that we can or we can't, but clearly democracy has taken hold pretty well around the world.
	Now, there are areas where it has not, but those are getting smaller and smaller.
	Even Russia gave up the ghost, you know?
	Right?
	Well, I think capitalism has installed itself, especially in China.
	You know, when you look at it, it's interesting.
	I had somebody tell me the other day that in the 1950s and 60s, when you and I were growing up, that 80% of the gross economy was manufacturing in America, and about 20% was financial services.
	And now, many years later, the economy is 80% financial services and 20% manufacturing.
	And what that means is that we are selling each other insurance and we're selling each
	other loans, but none of which is value-added manufacturing.
	You know what, though, Roger?
	Political change tends to follow economic change.
	Now, you mentioned China.
	It's a pretty good example.
	You're right.
	Capitalism is beginning to take hold in China, and I think that given enough time, political change will follow, and eventually the older leaders in China will die and we'll get some form of democracy in China.
	What do you think?
	Well, I think they're already worshipping the money.
	I mean, you look at these trade deficits.
	They are in control, and they are holding a lot of the U.S.
	debt.
	The U.S.
	debt is really an underlying problem.
	You know, we always think that we've got to worry about people coming over and invading us on an army kind of basis, but, you know, if in fact 40% of this national debt that we've got is being held by foreign investors, and a great deal of it I know is being held by the Arabs, and a lot of the oil-rich nations are holding this debt, and the Japanese are holding the debt, Yeah, it tends to shift around.
	Years ago it was the Japanese, and now I suppose to some degree it's China and those who have the oil, because that's where the money is.
	That's all true.
	So, you know, it becomes, how do you stay sovereign if you are an indebted nation?
	Well, we've kind of moved off the point of the discussion here a little bit, which was data, data, if you will, data mining and our privacy.
	And so I don't completely disagree with you on the danger of having a lot of national debt.
	I'm certainly not in favor of that.
	But what I am saying is that if you look at, and China is a perfect example, I think that eventually their political system is going to follow in change as their economic system is now rapidly changing.
	Yeah, I think you might be right about that.
	So the overall point is that democracy has got a pretty good foothold in the world right now, and those countries that are not democracies are the exception.
	Now in the world, certainly clearly the exception and not the rule.
	Roger Tulsis is my guest.
	We're talking, ostensibly talking about data mining and privacy and our rights and the Constitution and all of that.
	From Manila in the Philippines, I'm Mark Bell.
	Yes, indeed.
	Here I am.
	There was a story a little bit earlier.
	Roger Tolsys is my guest.
	He'll be interested in this.
	The teen, one of the first people ever implanted with a microchip, died in Florida.
	Now, normally that wouldn't be a story at all, one way or the other.
	It was just a death.
	I know that sounds horrible.
	But this teen had a microchip implanted.
	He was one of the first to ever have a microchip implanted.
	We'll take up that topic with Roger Tolses in a moment.
	Well, all right, I didn't have them run the phone number bumper, but if you would like
	a word with Roger, Roger Tolses, my guest, feel free to start lining up now and we'll
	probably take some calls in this half-hour segment beginning in this half
	It should be very interesting.
	Indeed, a teen with medical microchip dies in Florida.
	Here's the story, Booker Tone.
	Gee, I lived there.
	A teen engineering prodigy who gained national attention in 2002 when he and his family received identification chip implants on live television Was killed in a motorcycle accident, authorities said.
	Derek Jacobs, 18, lost control of his motorcycle early Saturday, crashed into a guardrail and pole, according to the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office.
	He was wearing a helmet.
	Now normally, obviously, a story like that would not make national news, but this young fellow had had a chip implant and that's one of the topics we were going to cover with Roger tonight.
	Roger, we're finding more microchip implanted individuals?
	Oh yes, we're still scanning people for microchip implants and we are still finding some.
	Although I tend to think at this point that there's been a change in direction on the black ops development relating to microchips if they're implanted on a mind control or tracking basis because We're seeing less of them than we did a few years ago.
	And I tend to think that what's happening is that these kind of control elements are now being more easily handled by directed energy coming off cell systems and aircraft and satellites.
	Really?
	Well, I don't know where to start here.
	Do you really think that we can actually control somebody's mind with an implanted chip?
	Well, I think that there's a lot of research.
	If you look at the electronic harassment section of my website at bugsweeps.com, on the front page you have a little box that vibrates that says electronic harassment.
	If you click on that, it'll take you to a picture of some of the biochips that are there.
	And some of these biochips are telemetry chips where They implant them and they can do several things.
	They can send information about what's going on inside your body out to a monitoring system, or they can implant chips that can actually affect the inside of your body by sending telemetry to the chip in order to make changes.
	Well, absolutely.
	I mean, for medical reasons, for example, I know they can put a microchip in that monitors, let's say, your heartbeat.
	And if something goes radically wrong, the medical authorities are notified and they come get you because you're in big trouble.
	That kind of thing.
	What I was asking about is, you know, actual mind control.
	I'm not aware that we've really achieved that with microchips.
	Yeah, I'm in agreement with that.
	I don't think that you're going to have mind control per se from an installed chip.
	Most of the mind control clients that we deal with are receiving problems through directed energy, be it microwave or other kinds of different Okay, well, you mentioned cell phone radiation.
	I'm not sure how that controls our minds.
	How does that work?
	Well, as an example, it was interesting.
	One of the shows that I did with George Norrie, after we had talked about some of the clients that we have that have had mental problems relating to being hit with directed energy, he was talking about his young daughter, which was this young lady about eight or nine.
	Who had pressed the parent to buy her a cell phone.
	And she was a well-behaved young lady, and had good grades, and was cooperative at school.
	And so the father buys her this cell phone, because all her friends have one, and she said, you know, as a safety issue.
	So she gets the cell phone, and within about a week or two, because she's on at night with her friends, because it's after nine o'clock at night, you can talk as much as you want, she's got the cell phone up to her head.
	Her behavior starts to deteriorate at school, where she's becoming rowdy, attention deficit, she's fighting with people, her grades plummet over the next few weeks, and she becomes this, her whole demeanor, rather than being a conscientious young person, ends up being this rowdy, disruptive kind of person.
	Cell phone madness, huh?
	So the father, as a punishment, takes the cell phone away.
	And in a matter of a couple weeks, her personality goes back to this rather calm, fastidious, serious about her work, able to concentrate, no longer aggressive.
	And he, when he wrote me the email, he said, you know, this follows directly what you were saying about how brain functions can be interfered with by microwaves in terms of the electrical operation.
	So that's just one example, and that came from your radio show.
	It was a listener that contacted me with this story.
	No, I don't buy it.
	Well, it's anecdotal at best, Roger, and secondly, there's no real evidence to show yet that there's harmful radiation that comes from cell phones, particularly that would do that.
	I'd be more inclined to believe that the nature of her conversations or whatever she was talking about on the cell phone was bothering her, as opposed to the actual radiation from the cell phone.
	Well, this is a behavioral change.
	I do have a research paper that I would have to pull out for you where they had done studies about the safe levels of microwave radiation.
	And originally those levels were set by the military relating to thermal heating.
	In other words, if the power levels were such that it heated up portions of the body to unacceptable levels, or if it affected your eyes relating to the cataract problem.
	Absolutely.
	And what happened is they did this other research that started to focus on when do you start to interfere with neural processing?
	And what they found was that the radiation levels, if you base it on neural interference, should be set so much lower than on the thermal basis relating to heat ups and cataracts.
	I do have that document and I can provide it to you by email or... Well, I'm certainly aware, Roger, that directed radiation, for example, from the installation in Alaska is a good example, might indeed have an effect on people's personalities and that sort of thing.
	But the radiation from the cell phone, I think, in the anecdotal situation you gave us, the I would be disinclined to believe that that was the case.
	I mean, you can throw it out there and people can consider it, but I don't know.
	Cell phone madness?
	I don't know.
	Well, we just got finished dealing with another young lady that lives directly across the street from Three Soul Towers, and she's been on a steady decline of health and mental health since she moved into this location.
	unaware of that kind of problem and she you know you it's a stone's throw you
	you she's on the second floor looking out on these towers and uh... corresponding with her move-in
	uh... ever since she's been having both physical and mental difficulties and what we did for her is that we did
	two things we uh... because she was unable to move out we
	made a ten foot by ten foot tent enclosure
	using shielding materials really
	we use a metalized fabric that uh... will attenuate uh... by about eighty percent
	most of those transmitted energies in those in those bands
	Yeah.
	And she's had improvement in that.
	The other thing that we use is we use an electrostatic field system where we use thermal blankets, which are conductive on one side, they're mylar on the other side.
	And we'll put those blankets on wall areas and we'll hook those up to a high voltage DC supply at about 7,500 volts.
	Isn't that more likely to do damage to you than anything coming from a cell phone tower?
	Well, actually, it's a DC bias.
	You have to look at it as a bias.
	And what it does is it offsets these incoming waves that are If you study the microwave, if you look at my website, there are documents on there that has to do with microwave hearing.
	And all these experiments that were done to transmit voices into people's heads and buzzing sounds and anything else, you can actually cause people to hear by transmitting microwaves if they're pulsed in the proper format.
	The government's been doing a tremendous amount of research on this, and I do have clients that regularly have problems with hearing voices and transmissions, and they're in the format of downloads where this information keeps repeating themselves.
	I see.
	All right, let's pick up a few phone calls and see what the audience has to say.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Roger Tulsis and Art Bell.
	Besides wanting to Talk about a news item that pertains to all of this that I heard about a week ago on the radio.
	Could I ask, Roger, other than a gauss meter, and I don't even know how to use a gauss meter properly, is there any way to tell whether one is being bombarded in any way?
	Well, your physical effects, there's a long list of physical effects that we can list here.
	But there isn't any kind of a meter?
	Well, the gauss meters will be good up to 400 hertz, so they're really They're for electromagnetic fields from about DC up to 400
	Hertz.
	That's not much of the spectrum when you consider that your microwave energy can be anywhere
	from 600 megahertz out to anywhere towards 40 gigahertz.
	You would need some kind of microwave meter, and there's one called a Tri-Field that covers
	quite a few of the ranges you could try.
	The thing about these things is that that's about $75 worth of parts, and when we go do
	investigations we use a $40,000 machine.
	Right.
	And so the accuracy levels that we're able to interpret and analyze.
	It's so much more in resolution that we can put our fingers on the problem.
	Okay, but Roger, you can get a field strength meter that will look at any high-level radiation right up through a microwave, if you really want one.
	Well, if it's a field strength meter, you're gulping the whole spectrum simultaneously.
	Well, that's right.
	And then you never really know what part of the spectrum, and they are very susceptible to structural...
	You know, if you have metal in the structure, a lot of times you've got these frequency resonances where the structure itself will re-emit.
	That's the other thing about people that have these kind of problems.
	The first thing we do is we get them off mattresses that have springs in them.
	Because, you know, if you're laying on a mattress that has springs that are all tied together by metal ties, it's like laying on an antenna that would be the size of a battleship antenna.
	Well, I suppose.
	I mean, that presumes, though, that you have an extremely high-level source of RF, you know, in your rather immediate area.
	Well, the thing about it is that for people that have electrical hypersensitivity, they only have to lay on something that can regenerate of that size and amplify it up just by the metal there.
	And the interesting thing is I approached one of the mattress manufacturers and I said, do you guys ever figure out the resonance?
	And the guy sent me back this gigantic paper.
	On the mattresses, really?
	That's right.
	Out of curiosity, Roger, where did they turn out becoming resident?
	Oh, you know, I don't remember.
	It's been such a long time.
	I'd have to go back and look at the paper.
	But there was a tremendous amplification factor when you consider the size of the bed.
	It was considerable.
	And if you're that proximity to the source, like laying right on it, it could be a substantial problem.
	Okay.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Roger Tolses and Art Bell.
	Hi.
	How are you doing, Roger and Art?
	I'm just fine, sir.
	I have some points to make here, and I'd like your opinion, especially Roger's and yours, Art.
	During World War II, the Navajo Code Talkers, they spoke over open lines, and everybody knew that everybody was listening, especially the Japanese.
	And certain things that they could talk about, for instance, they called tanks turtles.
	And they had a different, you know, they use basically animal names for different battleships or whatever.
	But I'm sure Al Qaeda knows, you know, about this program as much as we do.
	And they're not going to, you know, chances are they're not going to get on there and say, we're going to blow this up at a certain time at a certain date.
	You know, it'd be more like, hey, let's have coffee.
	And you know, I'll have mine with extra sugar.
	You know what I'm saying?
	I'm sure they can talk over open phone lines.
	And in the meantime, The only people that are getting affected by this is the average American being snooped on.
	Now, another point.
	World War II again.
	Does the phrase, God has a long mustache mean anything?
	Look at how many codes were sent to the French Resistance over open lines.
	But then again, you know, nobody knew what it meant.
	It was only intended for certain people and they knew that meant go.
	So, what you're saying is, if they would use simple phrases like that, they couldn't be detected anyway.
	Right.
	Now, Art, before, when Roger asked about all those questions and how you wouldn't mind, let me pose this to you.
	Now, a lot of your... You've got a telephone that's not working too well there.
	Are you on a portable or something?
	How's that better?
	Yeah, that's better.
	I wiggled the wire.
	Now, how about this, Art?
	Say, with all your different shows, and you are interested in UFOs, Say you had an informant that would call you up and say, okay, I worked at Area 51, I can prove this, and I'm willing to spill the beans.
	Well, if they're tapping your phone lines, and that keyword happens to be in their computer and grabs it before you get to him, now would that be right?
	I have always, sir, I have always assumed that my phones are tapped.
	Well, but you see what I'm saying.
	Well, I do.
	I do, but again, just for the record, I've always assumed they're tapped.
	Because of the nature of the kind of thing that I talk about, I've just always made that assumption.
	Well, you know, I assume the same thing.
	You know, I always have, actually, especially since I heard about this program many years ago.
	But, it comes down to, you know, Al Qaeda knows it's out there, too, and the end result is, chances are, you know, which I don't put a lot of faith in their intelligence, but I do think that, you know, they're not stupid enough to say things over open lines.
	In the meantime, they're not being heard, but we are.
	And anything being heard will be, you know, wrote down.
	For instance, a lot of people call your show and, you know, have different government ideas
	as far as they trust this or they're, you know, against that.
	Do you think that would be wrote down?
	I don't think it would be.
	I would.
	Well, maybe it would be.
	I have no way of knowing.
	There are guidelines.
	What we really should be debating is, it seems to me, the oversight of all of this.
	Not whether or not it should be done, because I think it should be done.
	But again, the oversight.
	Because, as Roger pointed out, it's the abuse of this that we have to be concerned with.
	Right, Roger?
	Well, the thing about it, as I said this before, I think that the invasion And the power of the ability to monitor us is directly proportioned to the sophistication of the chips that are being developed.
	The more sophisticated the chips, the more surveillance, the power of the surveillance goes up.
	So as these chips become more and more exponentially powerful, we're going to see a shrinking amount of privacy based just on that raw horsepower of the chips themselves.
	So it's the power of the chip, huh?
	Well, just think about it for a second.
	How could they possibly have done something like data mine all the called phone numbers in America for the past three years, 15 years ago?
	Good point.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Roger Tulsis and Art Bell.
	Hi.
	Good evening, morning, whatever, gentlemen.
	You guys have brought up some of the very reasons tonight.
	I can bring up another one.
	This is about the NSA now.
	The NSA monitoring information.
	There is... It's very easy to disrupt, and it's very easy to bypass.
	You guys have brought up these exact points.
	The logical conclusion is that it's not intended for terrorists.
	It never was.
	You were just given a reason to agree to it, a reason to give up rights to say okay to the system.
	It's obvious it's not made for terrorists because anyone high-level enough Let me give you an example.
	You've got enough people mad right now that don't want it on the side of the people that don't want it.
	Sure, get a million people to say the catchphrases on their phones the same day.
	Shut it down quick.
	That's the whole thing.
	It's easy to shut down, it's easy to bypass, therefore it's not made for high-level terrorists.
	It's funny, I used to joke about that.
	I used to say, why doesn't everybody get together and say, bomb, or nuclear, or something like that, right in the middle of a phone conversation.
	I used to joke about that, but you may notice I don't joke about that anymore.
	Because I'm not interested in screwing up their ability to intercept something that might mean life or death for a lot of Americans.
	Roger?
	Yeah, I agree with him.
	I think it was not made for the terrorists.
	It's basically the ability to have huge databases on the citizens.
	Okay, Roger, hold tight.
	We're at the top of the hour, and when we come back, we'll concentrate heavily on the phone lines.
	Roger Tolsys is my guest.
	We're discussing the advisability of doing what is, well, being debated and actually done right now with regard to listening to all of us.
	I'm Art Bell.
	From resident bed springs to mind-controlling cell phones, we've literally got it all for you tonight with Roger Tulsis.
	I'm Mart Bell.
	Good to have you with me.
	We're going to concentrate heavily on the phone lines, so if you want in, those were the numbers.
	Those are the doors to get to us and we'll get right to it.
	All right.
	I think Roger has a website he's referred to several times.
	I'm sure we have a link.
	Roger, do you want to tell everybody what your website is?
	Yeah, it's bugsweeps.com.
	B-U-G-S-W-E-E-P-S dot com.
	We have quite a few interesting articles on there.
	You were talking about the chip implants and things like that.
	If you go to the electronic harassment section at the top, there's a Coast to Coast logo, because George and I did a whole show about the implanted individual that was running the computers through mine processes.
	And we've got pictures and information about that up there.
	You know, I didn't get an opportunity to hear that.
	What was the...
	There's a research that was going on where they implanted a brain tap into an individual that was a paraplegic.
	All the information about it, several pages of information, is on my website.
	And let me just see, I think it's under brain tap.
	At any rate, if you go... They did this, I'm very interested.
	They implanted this chip for what purpose?
	As an interface to a computer for an individual that doesn't have use of their arms or their legs.
	Ah, so in other words, to produce some sort of mechanical ability for this person to be able to move?
	No, basically what he did is, in the first demonstration, and you see it in the information, is that they took a game of Pong.
	And he could play a game of Pong with himself to a level of about 70% accuracy with thought alone.
	I see.
	That was bad?
	Good or bad?
	No, it's just a very interesting advancement in the sense that they can make a brain interface that will allow exchange of information at least in one direction.
	Of course, we're looking at the Model T. My thoughts and George Norwich's thoughts were that In several years from now, it may be such that we may be downloading information into our own brains.
	In other words, reading a book will be archaic versus a download for 60 seconds on a brain interface basis.
	You can read that particular article.
	It's called Brain Taps.
	It's listed as Brain Taps in my information section.
	So if you go on the website and go up to the taskbar where it says Info, Click on that, and then in alphabetical order, there'll be the article on brain taps under the bees.
	Brain taps.
	Okay, here we go.
	Here comes the public.
	First time caller line, you're on the air with Roger Tolses.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	Hello there.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	Art?
	Yes.
	Hi, this is Rose down in Bay St.
	Louis, Mississippi, Katrina country.
	I wanted to tell you that our prayers are with you guys down in the Philippines.
	We know what you've gone through.
	I wanted to thank you for your courage all these years.
	I'm a long-time listener.
	I wanted to ask Roger a question about... I have an internet service.
	I'm an internet service provider, and we broadcast 2.4 to 5.6 gigahertz, and I was wondering if you could tell me if that is a problem with radiation, if there's any type of health issue that we might need to be aware of.
	Well, I think it is.
	It's been my research that even people that have wireless networks and are sitting in their own homes, if they're close enough to it, that these things can interfere with your neural processes.
	The whole thing about electrosmog in the sense that our cities are becoming totally wired with microwaves everywhere, I really think is going to end up being a smog problem similar to air pollution.
	And so, you know, I don't use any kind of RF devices in my house because I just don't want to have any of the physiological problems associated with them.
	Well, I use nothing but, Roger, and I'm sure there are those in the audience who will say, well, huh, that accounts for your point of view, Arne.
	I don't think so.
	I've been around RF, much higher levels of RF, Roger, all my life, both at lower and much higher frequencies, up to 12 and 13 gigahertz.
	And while it's nothing to be cavalier about, I don't think it's anything to really be scared about either.
	Well, I don't know.
	You know, you may build up immunities dealing with something like that over time.
	But yeah, and I think people that are not used to those kind of exposures may end up having more difficulty with them.
	But still, the point is, you still have to look at it as an element that was never present in cities before.
	There really was not microwave towers matricing the whole city, putting out RF levels that, in a lot of cases, during rush hours, go to fairly high amounts.
	Based on the amount of phone conversations in progress.
	I think the real danger from cell phones is people using them in cars and having accidents.
	At any rate, Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Roger Tolses, hello.
	Hi, I just wanted to comment that one of your previous callers I think was right on the money with respect to the fact that average people aren't going to If they're plotting something against the American people, they're not going to come right out and say, hey, we're going to bomb.
	They're not going to be so explicit.
	They would speak in code.
	And when he mentioned that, I was thinking that the whole idea of having wiretaps where just about anyone in America could be subject to what a normal person would consider an illegal wiretap It's more of a smokescreen.
	It's almost along the lines of the bird flu.
	It's more scare tactics than anything else.
	Yeah, but Collar, don't you think that the CIA or NSA has probably thought about what you're talking about?
	In other words, that people would speak not directly.
	You know, they're not going to say, set off the bomb at five o'clock, Mohammed, or something like that.
	In other words, they're going to be a little more circumspect.
	I'm sure they have, but I think there's a long history of Of mistrust of the government.
	I mean, just think about the McCarthy era, where perfectly innocent people were having voluminous FBI files built up on them in blacklists.
	No, I couldn't agree more.
	We've got to keep an absolute eye on our government.
	Always.
	Right.
	So it's the, my fear is the overzealous pursuit, justified, but at times overzealous pursuit of information could lead to perfectly, you know, legitimate American citizens being thrown into a Guantanamo prison sort of situation and I just think that we offer murderers more of a chance to prove their innocence and to beat the death penalty if they're convicted then the current laws allow in terms of rights individual American citizens should they be suspect of being a terrorist and that's where I think
	All the things I said, the mistrust, misuse of information, the overzealous pursuit of information, that I think is cause for worry.
	All right.
	Thank you very much.
	Any comment?
	Roger?
	Well, I think that the point he made about, or that you made, is that, oh, I have to keep an eye on him.
	But I think once you've relinquished The situation where the people that are supposed to be keeping the eye on them, the judiciary, relating to giving authorizations and warrants, that you're past the point of, you know, we can keep an eye on them, but, you know, we gave up the ability for there to be any lawful action in stopping it.
	So once you abrogate the judicial oversight, then the executive branches become kings, Able to do what they want to do, then we can keep our eye on everything, but it doesn't mean we're going to have any ability to stop the abuse.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Roger Tulsis.
	Hi.
	Yes, this is John from the state of Washington.
	Hi, John.
	Hi.
	Your visitor is right on when he talks about the Kings and the intelligence that is behind The corralling of the sheep ready for the slaughter is so much higher than your mindset or my mindset that we're being conquered and we're being thrown into that corral and we don't even know it.
	And the ways of men are being darkened by the darkest indicator that there is on the planet.
	The darkest indicator?
	Which would be Satan himself.
	Satan.
	Okay, well actually we don't, but we see we don't really have kings yet, much as we might, I guess, toss that term around.
	We really do have elected officials.
	Now, we may not be happy with them, but the electoral process is still in place.
	I mean, we elect our presidents, our congressmen, our local leaders.
	In other words, we do have this representative democracy.
	It is still there.
	Right, Roger?
	Let's not particularly pick on George Bush, but let's just say what happens if the current president said, you know, we're no longer going to deal with the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment.
	And I think at this point, because we're under national emergency and war, I'm going to stay on another term as president because, you know, we've been able, everybody's going to make a sacrifice because we're at war.
	And one of the sacrifices here is to keep the continuity of leadership until this thing is over, so we're just going to put the elections aside and I'm going to stay on as leadership and we'll just put that in the same little bin that we put the Fourth and Fifth Amendment in terms of putting them aside.
	Well, what would happen would be a revolution.
	Well, I'm just wondering, I mean, when is too much too much?
	When is too much, too much?
	I don't know.
	You have to have something specific.
	Certainly that would be too much.
	If you're asking, would that be too much?
	Yes, of course it would be too much.
	Okay, but it's not much different in the sense that the Fourth Amendment's being sidelined and the Fifth Amendment's being sidelined.
	Oh, but it is.
	I mean, we're having a great national debate about this, Roger, so it's very different.
	If the President says, look, I think there's an emergency, so I'm just going to stay on, Well, that's much too much, Roger.
	Oh, good.
	I'm glad to hear that there's a limit here, because before in our discussions, I ran the list down of things that you thought was okay on your personal... Well, I did stop you on my medical records.
	Yeah, you did.
	And what about DNA?
	What happened?
	Is it okay for the government to have your DNA?
	I don't see why not.
	Okay.
	Well, you know, I don't know.
	You can't get any more personal than that.
	Well, I suppose not.
	It's kind of like fingerprints.
	I know they have my fingerprints, right?
	Well, I think it's beyond fingerprints.
	DNA is, I think, even more invasive a piece of data.
	Well, certainly more specific, yeah.
	There's no question about it.
	But I don't know.
	Now, it's what's done with that DNA.
	For example, I will give you an example with reference to DNA.
	The misuse of DNA, for example, Roger, would be If they took your or my DNA and they discern from that that, oh, let's say I was likely going to get cancer at 40 years of age.
	We're going back a few years.
	I've already passed that possibility at 40.
	But that I was going to get cancer at 40 years of age.
	They're close to learning these kinds of things, Roger.
	If that information were turned over to an insurance company, well, gee, I probably wouldn't be able to buy insurance, would I?
	Well, that's the problem with allowing them to take this information in the first place.
	You really don't know what they're going to do with it.
	Well, I think that's what the national debate is all about.
	That's why we're having a debate about this warrantless business.
	I mean, we are, as long as we're having a debate, as long as it's out in the public sector and we're all talking about this and saying, is this right, wrong?
	Is it really a subversion of the Constitution?
	Will it last forever?
	As long as we're having these debates, it means we still have a fairly free and open society, I would think.
	I guarantee you they're not going to close up the DNA databases.
	Once you're in, you're in and that's that.
	Probably true, and I don't think they'll erase my fingerprints either, but there you are.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Roger Tolsitz.
	Hi.
	Yeah, hi Art.
	This is Jim Collin from Fort Lauderdale listening to you on WIOD Newsradio.
	Yes, sir.
	I usually agree with you pretty much on most things, but I don't like the idea.
	Before 9-11, the NSA said there was so much chatter that they knew something was up, but they couldn't Well, I have no idea.
	Well, one of the things that's happening is that the machines are doing the interpretation now.
	that I want extra nuclear palmettoes, I mean, jalapenos on it.
	How can they interpret all this information when they couldn't interpret it from a few
	people beforehand?
	Well, I have no idea.
	Well, one of the things that's happening is that the machines are doing the interpretation
	now.
	They have data landscape where you actually put on those goggles and you can look at landscapes
	of information, not in the sense of the actual words, but a compilation of how many words
	that are flagged words are stack ups in particular areas.
	It's a rather interesting software that enables the analysts to focus in on things.
	So you don't want to order.
	Roger, at the end of the day, what the machine finally spits out is going to be turned over to a human being, if it's really of interest and it's really, really something that's going to get turned over to human intel of some sort, right?
	Well, either that or the dossier got this dossier thing, you know, all we know Any matter of interest may be taking all your conversations into a hard drive for later interest who knows when.
	Alright, first time caller on the line, you're on the air with Roger Tolson.
	Is this me Art?
	That's you.
	Hi Art, I have to tell you I'm very deeply disappointed in the attitude you've taken towards this whole domestic surveillance.
	How on earth can you possibly expect a government who You've railed about in the past, and maybe not railed, but you've expressed some consternation over the fact that they've, as far as the UFO and things happening on a paranormal basis, they've kept that from the public.
	How can we possibly trust this government, any government, to have so much power and control over the information in our lives?
	I would never That list that Roger mentioned earlier, I would never agree to one of those things.
	That's a fascist state.
	That's China or Russia in the old days or now.
	Not only depending on how the information is used.
	But we don't know how the information is going to be used.
	That's just the thing.
	And we know from, as Karla earlier said, the historical record is replete with these abuses, terrible abuses.
	And think how soon, in just a matter of a generation, Young people coming up and those who have never been born will... Let me put it this way, sir.
	If it was really fascist...
	If it really was fascist in the way that you describe, they would not be seeking permission to be doing this in the first place.
	They would simply do it.
	And then they would abuse it.
	That's a fascist state.
	We're having a debate about this in America right now.
	And so this is an ongoing debate.
	A fascist state, like the one you described, they would simply just do it and then they would use that information definitely in a wrong way and you would find yourself In some sort of jail, or lock-up, or re-education camp, or something like that.
	That's fascist.
	Well, keep in mind that this administration did try to implement it without anybody knowing it, in secret, to sidestep this judicial process.
	That was the way that they went about doing it.
	It was years after That the New York Times exposed it, but I can tell you that going back to one of my 2003 shows, George Norrie asked me, do you think the NSA is spying on Americans today here in America?
	And I told him at that time that they were.
	You did.
	Well, I think for some years now, we've known that the NSA has been doing that.
	It was not supposed to be in the working inside of the American communication system.
	Yeah, but that was on 60 Minutes a long time ago.
	Years ago now.
	Right?
	I don't think so.
	Not that I saw it.
	I didn't see it.
	Oh, sure it was.
	They exposed that many years ago.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Roger Tolses.
	Hi.
	Hi, this is John in Savannah, Georgia.
	You know, I can see both sides to the rights versus security argument, but I always thought the question was kind of academic.
	I was always under the impression that They went ahead and did the electronic surveillance, and then if they had to back engineer the case to make it legal, they did.
	In other words, they're going to do it anyways.
	Yeah.
	You know, and I never see this mentioned in the media, but it always seems to me that law enforcement and intelligence agencies just go ahead and tap the phones and then put the pieces back together, you know, as they need to, if they need to make it legal.
	Well, if that was really the case, though, then we wouldn't be having this great debate that we're having.
	Well, it was the case in Los Angeles.
	They had thousands of cases where they had done illegal wiretaps, convicted, brought the evidence forward, saying that they were... Oh, no, no, no.
	You're absolutely right.
	And then they went and they put other fronts for how they got the information.
	You're absolutely right, Roger, and that was illegal.
	But that's not exactly what we're talking about right now.
	Hold on, Roger.
	We're at the bottom of the hour, so we'll take a break here.
	Come back and do one more segment with Roger Tulsis.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Well, a lot of trees are still down.
	A lot of power lines are still down.
	We got hit pretty hard by a typhoon, but the power is coming back.
	Life resumes.
	Hi, everybody.
	My guest is Roger Tolsys.
	We're talking about Taps on phones, data mining, information, who has it, what they do with it, micro implants, I guess, control of the very brain.
	And with that, we'll be right back.
	Once again, Roger Tolson's right.
	Roger, you have not yet written a book about all this.
	Are you headed in that direction?
	Well, yeah, I've been working on one, but one more question for you here.
	Now, the government has the technical capability to turn your cell phone on at any time and listen to the room in which you're in.
	Is that something that would bother you without a warrant?
	If it ate up my minutes.
	It will not eat up your minutes.
	Is that okay with you?
	For them to turn on your cell phone and listen to what's going on at any time?
	Are you sure it wouldn't take my minutes?
	I'm sure.
	Well, you know, it would be crushingly boring for them.
	But, you know, is there anything going on that I would... I just want to know if it's okay, because of the terrorist situation, whether they can turn on and listen to your Goings-on around your cell phone at any time that they will to do so.
	Well, I don't know.
	There are circumstances under which, in other words, if they knew that something was being discussed that was a compromise of national security or something that was life-threatening, then maybe the ability to do that.
	For example, I could imagine under the right circumstances, Roger, the police doing that.
	If they knew where a cell phone that they could turn on and they heard a crime being planned, a murder being planned or something like that.
	Well, it would be the typical fishing expedition that you have with the NSA.
	We'll just go around, turn them on, see what we can hear, see if we've got any illegal activity.
	I mean, we can get very paranoid about this, Roger, and just imagine they're turning on everybody's cell phone and listening to our lovemaking, but I, you know, just somehow I don't think they're doing that.
	Well, I can only tell you that I have examined phones that will do this.
	So the government has the capability to do that.
	How do you know they have that capability?
	That's very interesting.
	Because I've analyzed the phones that have received the software to enable it.
	So you could actually do it, right?
	I don't do it, the government does it.
	No, I said you could do it.
	If I had their technical capability, I could do it.
	So, you figured this out based on what?
	I mean, I don't know how they would technically accomplish that, but if you do, if you know how it would be done, tell me.
	Yeah, the way it's done is that the software that is in the telephone, just think about it as being a computer.
	When you want to bring new operational software into your computer, you just go online and it downloads and then you have a new software that does whatever you've That's even true of cell phones.
	You can download the latest operating system.
	That's how it works.
	When the government wants to enable this function that I'm talking about, they download software modifications to your phone that enables that capability, that it actually takes down conversation, it removes the space between the conversation
	to optimize memory and then it will data burst that conversation back
	up at a convenient time. I would bet they could do that. I've already examined
	phones that have the capacity to do that. So all right, but getting back to
	our discussion of tonight, is that okay with Art that his phone could get
	turned on at any time?
	Well, like I told you, it's the minutes thing.
	As long as they leave my minutes alone.
	It does not interfere with your minutes in any way.
	So it's okay if anybody pops in and listens on a fishing expedition at any point during the day that you've got the phone on.
	It'd be boring.
	I'm telling you, it'd be boring.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Roger Tulsis.
	Hello, Art?
	Yes, hello.
	Hi, I've been listening to your guest tonight talk about our lack of privacy and the monitoring of the American people when on the consumer level it's been going on for years.
	The POS terminals, the corporations know oftentimes very intimate details of our lives.
	That's absolutely true.
	Since 1999, all vehicles manufactured have GPS systems Basically what I'm asking is how come it's okay for corporations to do this and not the government in the name of security?
	Well, I think the problem is that I think most of the consumer stuff normally has to do with transactional information.
	Yes, but from transactions you can oftentimes find out a lot of information.
	I agree with you.
	I agree with you.
	Her point was, why is it okay for corporations but not the government?
	Well, the corporations do it with your own granting approval to do so.
	You fill out forms that say that they can hold these things.
	But don't forget that a lot of the corporations you're dealing with Are somewhat under government control, like all your banks.
	I mean, when you go into a bank, you're really dealing with the government.
	There really are agents.
	They're kind of sub agencies and controlled in detail.
	So this is one of the reasons when the government wants to look at records, they don't really even get a warrant.
	Oh, but Roger, there are corporations that look at, for example, what you buy, or even what you look at that's, for example, advertised on the web, and then if you enter information, including your name and phone number and God knows what else, those lists are frequently sold and passed among corporations and things like that.
	You're certainly aware of that.
	Yeah, of course, and you did so willingly, but the content of my phone conversations is not a willing release.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Roger Tolstoy.
	Hi Art, how are you?
	I love your show, I really do respect you a great deal because you do give a very legitimate voice and a huge stage to guys like Roger and this is a discourse that needs to happen and I think it should be happening more often.
	Roger, I do have a question for you.
	It's great that you bring this to national attention, that you go on Art's show and I'll look forward to seeing you on Fox News.
	You know, if you're going to come out here and you're going to say this in public and come on the air and level these kinds of, I wouldn't call them accusations, but suggestions, then where do you want to take this?
	I mean, it's great to talk about it, but then what can we do about it?
	I mean, what does it mean for us?
	And how can we combat this in our own lives if we're worried about this?
	Well, you know, first of all, you can make sure that when you transact things, you transact things in manners where you're not leaving a great deal of records.
	I tend to do most of my transacting in cash just so that I can keep my personal privacy about where, you know, what I spend money on and in my own spending habits.
	So as far as that goes, that covers a lot of it.
	It takes your whole financial picture and puts that into a better space of anonymity.
	I take it you're certainly not in favor of a cashless society then?
	Well, I don't use credit cards and I tend to do things in cash when I travel.
	Just because it's more convenient.
	But once again, if you go pull my credit card, you come up with zilch.
	You have no idea where I've been, what I've spent my money on.
	You know, I mean, that's the way I... The only problem with that way of living, and it is a fair way to live, Roger, is that if you need credit, then you don't have it.
	Yeah.
	Well, you know, the thing about it is I really, I don't borrow money for many reasons.
	I was listening to your earlier financial, and I myself, I'm 98% in gold myself.
	And the interesting thing is the last time I said that with George Norrie, gold was $3.40 an ounce.
	I said it three years ago, and now it's, I think it closed around $5.80 the other day.
	Uh-huh.
	Oh, yeah.
	It's definitely gone up.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Roger Tulsas.
	Hello.
	Hello, is that me?
	That's you.
	Oh, okay.
	Hi, I'm Jeff.
	I'm calling.
	I'm in a truck from Nevada.
	Okay.
	Listening to Roger talk earlier about this thing they passed in the law about the wiretapping, and he was talking about how the phone calls all go through a center, phone calls listened to for certain phrases and words.
	Well, that's tapping all of our phones already.
	We're already tapped.
	Exactly.
	We are already tapped.
	The NSA has wired all our phones and all our ISPs right up to our house.
	We are directly connected with the intelligence agencies.
	Well, there you have it.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Roger Tolses.
	Yeah, good day, gentlemen.
	I'm listening to 1410 AM in Victoria.
	Yes, sir.
	I got a question for both of you, and I'd like Art to take it on first, if I may.
	Just to be politically correct, let's say you had, hypothetically, had a government that rigged an election We had collusion and assisted in 9-11 and it's dispersing spent plutonium like a dirty bomb throughout a nation that they invaded illegally.
	Don't you think this technology would sort of keep them in power as opposed to assist the public in dealing with the reality and truths that are being hidden from them currently by the mass media?
	And you think all those, what you just mentioned, a government that blew up its own buildings, and what else was it?
	I think if you look at the physics of how the building fell and how Building 7 was conveniently taken out with the Enron and WorldCom paperwork, and the missing money, and the no-bid Carlisle military contract, oil profits hungry administration, is your country worth that administration, or is your future worth kissing Kissing up to them?
	Well, if you believed all of that was true, we'd be in really big trouble.
	Fortunately for me, I don't believe that.
	Do you, Roger?
	I think that there's a real threat when you have these kind of powerful databases with all the dossiers and available information about every detail of another person.
	Then how does a challenging political party come up against somebody that has that control, that information at their fingertips?
	It can be really very big problem.
	So you're saying this is hard for the Democrats because the Republicans have all the info?
	Well, apparently, at this time, in the name of the war, the President can order up these details of information on anybody.
	Who's going to stop him?
	Well, remember when Richard Nixon tried to get a little information on the opposition?
	Yeah.
	Boy, big trouble.
	Yeah, it's great the way that worked out, but, you know, that was...
	Well, I mean, that was nothing compared to what you're talking about.
	He wasn't doing it with the sanction of the Congress and the judiciary.
	Well, I don't think... Wait a minute now.
	I don't think the Bush administration is spying on the Democrats with anybody's permission.
	Well, the point is that they've got databases on everyone.
	That's what you're saying.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, let's see.
	Let's go to East of the Rockies.
	And East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	How are you doing this morning?
	My name is Chris.
	I'm calling from Davenport, Iowa.
	And I'd just like to play devil's advocate here for a minute, if I could.
	Starting with Abraham Lincoln, he suspended hapeas corpus and started to imprison Southern sympathizers.
	Woodrow Wilson did roughly the same thing and directed it towards peace protesters.
	Franklin Roosevelt suspended hapeas corpus and along with that, he started concentration, not concentration camps, but internment camps for Japanese.
	As well as even stationing federal agents inside German-speaking schools and churches and basically in a roundabout way outlawing the speaking of the German language during World War II.
	In my opinion, I would say that what our government is doing now is far less abusive than what any other president has done.
	Roger?
	Well, it depends on what they do with all these dossiers and databases.
	Why don't you instead reflect on the history he just talked about?
	And then, of course, during World War II, a lot was done.
	And yet, the Republic plunders forward.
	Yeah, it does.
	And of course, look what happened to, as an example, the Native Americans.
	They were rounded up, put in concentration camps.
	And they attempted to to get rid of them all together, give them smallpox and all the rest of this kind of stuff.
	So, you know, there's a long history of those kind of abuses.
	And then you got to say to yourself, how much power do you want to give a government?
	to be able to single out people and have dossiers with these kind of details we were talking about tonight.
	You jumped over, though, and gave us the American natives as an answer to his question, which I don't think was quite fair.
	Well, I'm just saying there's a long history of abuse.
	I agree with him.
	And do we want to give this much power, this dossier computer mining power?
	Do we want to allow that to run unchecked?
	I don't think we should.
	Well, I know we don't want to have it run unchecked.
	We want to have it run checked.
	That's my point.
	We want to have checks on it.
	Absolutely want to have checks.
	First-time caller line, you're on the air with Roger Tolses.
	Hello.
	Hi, Art Terry from Diamond Bar, California.
	I would like to say thank God that you have common sense.
	I know you tend to be a little liberal on certain things, but in this case, you are right on.
	You've tied this guy up in knots.
	Every time you try to explain something to him, he reverts to some sort of convoluted nonsense.
	He's referring to the American Indians when you ask him about internment camps of World War II.
	I find this man extremely offensive, and I'd like to thank God that he's not in charge of our security.
	I guess if he starts saying mushroom clouds around America, he'll be screaming.
	That President Bush, who it's quite obvious he despises, isn't doing his job.
	If this was an elected Democratic President, he would be screaming for interrogation of everyone except Middle Easterners.
	This is the kind of guy he is.
	I know it.
	Roger, do you despise President Bush?
	Go ahead, laugh.
	No, just answer the question.
	Do I despise him?
	Well, I really don't like Some of the things that he's done especially, I think the war itself is the wrong direction for this country.
	We can't afford it and I think that we're stirring up a worldwide war that we're really not going to be able to do much about keeping it contained.
	Do you think we're going to lose it?
	I think that there's going to be some terrible outcome that we just haven't foreseen.
	I see.
	Well, if that's true, then we better be listening.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Roger Tolses.
	Hello?
	Hello.
	Oh, hi, Art.
	I'm calling from the Miami, Florida area.
	Yes, ma'am.
	And my husband was in the Navy, and then he got a job at the AT&T company.
	He had a first-class license, his FCC license.
	And he passed away last year, and he was only 60.
	And he had come down with epilepsy.
	I was wondering if these radio waves could have had anything to do with it, since he worked in that.
	Well, of course, it would be absolutely impossible for us to make any sort of medical diagnosis on what killed your husband, so I'm not even going to try to answer that question.
	I'm sorry he passed away, but obviously we can't go there.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Roger Tulsis, and not a whole lot of time.
	Hi.
	Okay, hi.
	Art, you have a great phone hostess.
	Roger, I saw your website and it's astonishing all these, your information you have about the weapons that they use.
	I wanted to ask you, since I've seen like on the internet a lot of people who are suffering, they say from these electronic, I call it electronic harassment.
	Yes.
	Do you think there's a, not the government, but do you think there's a group or a shadow group that are doing experiments that people aren't aware of?
	Yes, I do.
	I think there is.
	Really?
	Yep.
	Can you comment on that?
	It's not a short discussion.
	It's a long one.
	Actually, we did a show with George Norrie, a whole two-hour show on it some time ago.
	Unfortunately, I think it's beyond the The ability to replay it, but I have that show on CD, so you could contact me.
	Well, you did the show, right?
	So, I mean, you could give us a nutshell.
	Yeah, a nutshell is that under Title 50, Chapter 32, Section 1528, the government has the ability to do bioweapons experiments on its own citizens.
	And it's under the Non-Lethal Weapons Program.
	Oh, I'm familiar with that.
	And so that is the authority for them to go forward and do experiments on whoever they want for almost any reason.
	Okay, Roger, your website once again is?
	Bugsweeps.com.
	All right.
	Well, thank you for being here, and you take care, my friend.
	Okay.
	See you, Art.
	See you later, Roger.
	All right.
	That's it, folks.
	That's my weekend.
	We return your radio to its normal weeknight affair, coming up with George Noy.
	I'm sure a wonderful lineup of guests coming this next week.
	We'll be cleaning up here, putting the trees back in place, and the telephone lines and the electric lines back where they ought to be.
	So, for this night, from Southeast Asia, Manila in the Philippines, I'm Art Bell.

▲